“DeSmogBlog.com appears to be the main source of allegations that 'FrackNation' was industry-funded,” wrote the Post. “DeSmogBlog claims connections between [film Co-Director Phelim] McAleer and conservative groups, industry groups help[ing] promote the film after its was made, and the fact that McAleer directed an industry-funded documentary in the past, as proof that 'FrackNation' is cut from the same cloth.”
The cancellation has caused a major kerfuffle in conservative media circles, covered by outlets ranging from Fox News, Fox Business, The Blaze TV, Town Hall, Watchdog.org, Hot Air and others. McAleer was a featured guest on “Fox and Friends” on January 23.
“The film festival organizers seem to hate alternative points of view, they seem to want to quash diversity. They seem to be scared of the truth,” McAleer said in the press statement. “Basically the Frozen River Film Festival organizers have given in to bullying and taken the easy way out and censored a film that might offend environmental elites who think they know best.”
But an email exchange** provided by film festival organizers to DeSmogBlog shows, far from a case of censorship, “FrackNation” did not agree to the standard operating procedure for screening the film. In turn, festival organizers decided they wouldn't screen it.
“FrackNation” Rises to Prominence
Co-Directed by Magdalena Segieda, Ann McElhinney and McAleer, “FrackNation” came out a few months before the release of Josh Fox's “Gasland: Part II” and around the same time as Gus Van Sant's Hollywood film critical of fracking, “Promised Land,” starring Matt Damon.
Since its release, “FrackNation” has done many screenings nationwide for state-level Americans for Prosperity (AFP) groups. AFP is a front group founded and bankrolled by the Koch Brothers, David and Charles Koch. It's also done many screenings for oil and gas industry trade associations.
But that's not the whole story, according to FRFF organizers, who said it's the festival's standard operating procedure that film representatives come for post-film discussions and question-and-answer sessions.
“Upon original acceptance we stated that a filmmaker attend with the film and join in a moderated public forum, as engagement is an important part of our mission,” reads a press release they posted on Facebook about canceling the film's screening. “We offered to pay travel and lodging to anyone from the film who could attend. They declined to send someone, so we will not be screening the film.”
FRFF provided DeSmogBlog the email exchange between Festival Director Crystal Hegge and “FrackNation” co-director Magdalena Segieda outlined in FRFF's press release.
“Is there anyone associated with the film that could come to the festival?,” Hegge asked in a December 19 email. “If no one from the film can come to the festival I may have to rethink my arrangement because there will be a lot of dead time in this particular theater without a Q&A or panel.”
Segieda responded, but didn't address the possibility of the “FrackNation” screening being canceled if a film spokesperson couldn't attend the festival.
“Unfortunately, no one from the FrackNation team would be able to come,” wrote Segieda in a December 20 email. “Let me know when you set the the time, I will wait for your laurel to start promoting the screening.”
FRFF told DeSmogBlog it had a local frac sand industry sponsor give $1,000 to the film festival to support a member of the “FrackNation” team coming to the film festival.
But after Segieda informed Hegge that “FrackNation” couldn't comply with FRFP's request that they participate in a post-screening panel and after “FrackNation” asked for $10,000 from the sponsor according to Kennedy, the sponsor pulled out. From there, it was game over for screening the film at FRFF.
Initially, Kennedy envisioned a “Super Bowl” of fracking documentaries to take place at FRFF, with a debate between to ensue between McAleer and Fox. Fox couldn't make it out.
But in his place, Calvin Tillman— the former Mayor of Dish, Texas featured in the second “Gasland” — will be on-site as a representative and speaker for the film, according to Kennedy.
Film Fest Organizers Not Backing Down
Despite the backlash by the “FrackNation” team, FRFF organizers say they won't back down.
They told the Winona Post, “true documentaries are independently funded,” pointing out that its role model film festivals, Telluride Mountain Film Festival and Sundance Film Festival have both also snubbed “FrackNation” and concluded, “there is a growing national consensus that the film does not qualify as a documentary.”
In place of screening “FrackNation,” FRFF is hosting a forum titled “Documentaries Today: My Fact Your Fiction,” which will center around the fine line between factual documentary film and propaganda documentary-style film.
Asked if he thought the post-cancellation was manufactured and deceptive, Kennedy told DeSmogBlog, “let's just say it was likely well thought out and coordinated and leave it there.”
**Update**: In an email interview with “FrackNation” Co-Director Magdalena Segieda, DeSmogBlog has learned additional emails were exchanged (published here with Segieda's permission) after December 20 between the film festival coordinators and Segieda.
These emails weren't included in the initial batch sent to DeSmogBlog by the festival organizers.In a January 7 email, Film Festival Director Crystal Hegge informed Segieda the film screening would be at 10:00 AM on January 26.
“Thanks - do you have a laurel by any chance so I can start promoting the screening on our social media?,” Segieda wrote in response to Hegge's email.
After Hegge told Segieda all she had was a “generic laurel,” on January 10, a week passed. Then, according to the email exchange provided to DeSmogBlog by Segieda, Hegge emailed Segieda to say they had to cancel the screening a week later on January 17.
“I am writing to inform you that we will not be showing FRACKNATION during our 2014 festival,” Hegge wrote. “Due to the high quantity of films at the festival we have decided not to show this feature film without a filmmaker attendant. Thank you for your submission and please consider us in the future.”
It didn't take long for Segieda to respond.
“But we have already published and promoted the screening with time and address to thousands of our fans on our social media,” Segieda wrote less than ten minutes later in a response email. “I have also just finished create (sic) a promo poster attached here and was going to push it out over the next couple of days.”
Asked about the discrepency in the story versions between the two camps, Phelim McAleer provided this statement to DeSmogBlog:
It is unfair that the Frozen River Film Festival has cancelled the FrackNation screening and misrepresented the true situation in the media. I think its clear that they have caved to political pressure and as a result there will not be diversity of opinion and ideas at the festival. This is not what a film festival should be about.
Williams' Transco Pipeline System; Photo Credit: William Huston
Both ANR and Gulf Trace will feed into Sabine Pass, the Louisiana-based LNG export terminal set to open for business in late 2015. Also like ANR, Transco will transform into a gas pipeline flowing in both directions, “bidirectional” in industry lingo.
Bluegrass, if ever built, also would transport fracked gas to the Gulf Coast export markets. But instead of LNG, Bluegrass is a natural gas liquids pipeline (NGL).
“The project…is designed to connect [NGLs] produced in the Marcellus-Utica areas in the U.S. Northeast with domestic and export markets in the U.S. Gulf Coast,” it explained in an April 28 press release announcing the project's suspension.
With Bluegrass tossed to the side for now, Williams already announced in a press release that the company has launched an open season to examine industry interest in Gulf Trace. It closes on May 8, 2014.
“Although we recognized the suspension of the Bluegrass could impact non-conventional drilling here in Western Pennsylvania, we should all know better than to get too excited about this announcement,” Carrie Hahn, a Pennsylvania-based activist told DeSmogBlog. “There is too much at stake here for them to give up that easily.”
The announcement follows in the aftermath of the flurry of federal-level lobbying activity by Williams during the first quarter of 2014.
Williams Spends Big Lobbying for Exports
First-quarter lobbying disclosure forms indicate Williams spent $450,000 lobbying at the federal level for both shale gas exports and pipeline permitting issues. It has done so utilizing both its in-house lobbyists and outside lobbying firms.
No smart corporation makes a big announcement of this sort without first greasing the skids and Williams is no different in that regard, utilizing the age-old government-industry revolving door to curry favor.
The other three lobbyists listed on Ryan, MacKinnon, Vasapoli and Berzok, LLP's disclosure form for the work it did on behalf of Williams — Matthew Berzok, Nick Kolovos and Jeffrey Mortier — also passed through the revolving door as former staffers for congressional members who were on the Energy & Commerce Committee.
The episode earned the unflattering name because New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has the final say over whether the floodgates will be opened for fracking the Marcellus Shale in his state, has a powerful aide named Larry Schwartz.
Schwartz, DeSmog revealed, has thousands of dollars worth of investments in Williams Companies and other companies standing to gain if fracking goes forward in New York.
A reminder: Williams' Transco runs from New York and the northeast down to the Gulf.
Transco is connected to fracked gas produced in Marcellus Shale via the company's Springville Pipeline and its proposed Constitution Pipeline, which is set to connect to Springville when if and when it opens for business in 2015 or 2016.
Williams' Constiution Pipeline and Springville Pipeline; Photo Credit: William Huston
In short, New York — a state geographically distant from Louisiana, Gulf Trace and Sabine Pass LNG—is directly connected to Williams' latest export pipeline announcement both via its lobbyists and Williams' gas pipeline empire.
And so while fracking has yet to commence in the Empire State, that doesn't mean the shale gas industry doesn't have an increasingly heavy footprint there, as it proceeds with business as usual by using an “empire state of mind.”
“From 1998 to 2005, he served as the director and energy strategist for Deutsche Bank's global oil and gas equity team,” his EIA biography explains. “Prior to that, from 1988 to 1997, Mr. Sieminski was the senior energy analyst for NatWest Securities in the United States, covering the major U.S. international integrated oil companies.”
Adam Sieminski, U.S. Energy Information Administration Administrator; Photo Credit: U.S.EIA
The revolving door, though, is as American as apple pie. What makes the Krohn appointment more alarming to some observers: what this means in the context of the potential looming shale gas and oil bubble.
This revelation comes after EIA downgraded its Monterey Shale oil reserves estimate from 13.7 billion barrels to 600 million barrels, a 96-percent decrease
EIA: “Seriously Exaggerating Shale Gas Production”
Hughes, 40 years of experience as a geoscientist, says the productivity numbers coming out of wells around the country point to a far less rosy picture about the future of fracked oil and gas in the United States. The industry must maintain a constant “drilling treadmill” to ensure steady amounts of oil and gas come out of the ground.
“Production in February 2014, is stated to be more than 7.8 bcf/d higher in the EIA Drilling Productivity Report than it actually is…equivalent to more than 10 percent of the total gas production of the U.S,” wrote Hughes.
“Real production data usually lags two months behind, and the most recent months are subject to revisions. Yet the EIA’s Drilling Productivity Report confidently reports production for the current and following month.”
“The productivity of oil and natural gas wells is steadily increasing in many basins across the United States because of the increasing precision and efficiency of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in oil and natural gas extraction,” reads the March article. “Many resource-producing basins are experiencing an increasing yield over time in either oil (Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara) or natural gas (Marcellus, Haynesville).”
“Critics of shale development have frequently alleged that the industry is a 'bubble' about to burst, owing to an alleged need to drill more and more wells to maintain production,” wrote Energy in Depth's Dana Bohan. “But EIA’s latest report tosses cold water on that theory, demonstrating that technology is not static — unlike the bizarre musings of anti-fracking activists.”
Bohan did not respond to a request for comment for this article.
Since coming to EIA, Krohn still maintains a pro-fracking stance on his Twitter account, which contains the “All opinions are my own” boilerplate language.
Both Krohn and the EIA have denied repeated requests for comment.
“Troubling” Hire
U.S. Public Law 95-91, Section 205, which created the EIA, suggests its reports should steer clear of policy prescriptions:
The [EIA] Administrator shall not be required to obtain the approval of any other officer or employee of the Department in connection with the collection or analysis of any information; nor shall the Administrator be required, prior to publication, to obtain the approval of any other officer or employee of the United States with respect to the substance of any statistical or forecasting technical reports which he has prepared in accordance with law.
Post Carbon Institute, which has been at the forefront of raising awareness about a prospective looming shale gas bubble, told DeSmogBlog it finds the hiring of Krohn “troubling.”
“The Energy Information Administration is viewed by government agencies — both here in the US and abroad — and media as the trusted source of energy information,” said Asher Miller, Executive Director of Post Carbon Institute. “It plays an invaluable role in determining energy policy, which is why it’s so troubling that the EIA would hire staff with a recent history of pro-industry propaganda.”
Photo Credit: Facebook; Krohn on the left at a fracking site while working at EID
After finishing high school, Armstrong attended RCA Institutes (now TCI College of Technology) in New York City and audited courses at Princeton University but never completed a college degree. [1]
Background
Martin Arthur Armstrong is former chairman of Princeton Economics International Ltd. and the CEO of Armstrong Economics. Martin Armstrong is known for developing the Economic Confidence Model based on business cycles and pi. He has claimed to have predicted the crash of 1987 to the very day, as well as Nikkei's collapse in 1989, and Russia's financial collapse in 1998. [2], [1], [3]
Armstrong started Armstrong Economics in 2007 while he was still in prison. Inspired by letters he was receiving, Armstrong began producing research reports. He relied mainly on the Financial Times for information. In his essays and letters, he compares himself to Adam Smith, Abraham Lincoln, Galileo, and Neo, from “The Matrix.” [1]
Armstrong has published a number of articles where he suggests we are moving into a period of global cooling, or a new ice age. According to Armstrong, “Every possible data series warns that we are heading back into a cooling — not warming — period.” [12]
Writing at his blog, Armstrong described climate change mitigation measures as an “agenda to eliminate your freedom” and “move toward an authoritarian state”: [20]
“Climate is changing and it is part of the normal cycle – not human-induced. You are actually correct that I support capitalism and freedom and am against authoritarianism and totalitarian systems. What you fail to understand is that climate change is an agenda to eliminate your freedom. The entire argument is to support a move toward an authoritarian state. You better wake up. This is not truly about the climate change, it is all about controlling society, eliminating democracy, and changing the entire economic model that changes society. There is far more at stake here than most people realize.” [20]
July 6, 2016
“There is now growing concern among scientists that we may indeed be heading into global cooling rather than warming. The concerns center on the apparent weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. This seems to be triggering a growing amount of speculation about abrupt cooling,” Armstrong declared at his blog, ArmstrongEconomics.[12]
February 14, 2014
“[T]here is ABSOLUTELY no evidence whatsoever that the planet is going through some warming stages created by mankind. That is total nonsense,” Armstrong wrote in a blog article titled “Global Warming Why it is Nonsense.” [6]
“CO2 levels have been much higher than currently over the millennia. The Global Warming crowd has an agenda and the core of that is to reduce the population. They remain influenced by the Malthus theory and have been hell-bent on stopping population growth.
“Over the past 100 million years, we have been in a decline in CO2 level dropping from 500 ppm to 200 ppm with an average of about 300 ppm. They refuse to address any of the historical evidence no less the cycle of life itself.
“Humans exhale typically consists of 40,000 ppm to even 50,000 ppm of CO2. Should we be fined or extinguished because we are a major contributor to COs levels? Those who are demonizing CO2 as a 'pollutant' fail to explain that in a room filled with people CO2 levels can commonly reach 2000 ppm with no apparent ill effects.”
“The danger from the Global Warming crowd is that they are misleading the entire world and preventing us from what is dangerously unfolding that sparks the rapid decline in civilization – GLOBALCOOLING. I previously warned that this is not my opinion, but simply our computer. If it were really conscious it would be running to store to buy heating pads. This year will be much colder for Europe than the last three. It will also be cold in the USA. We are in a global cooling period and all the data we have in our computer system warns that the earth is turning cold not warm.
“This cooling is very serious. This decline in the energy output of the sun will manifest in a commodity boom in agriculture as shortages send food prices higher. We will see famine begin to rise as crops fail and that will inspire disease and plagues. We will see the first peak in agricultural prices come probably around 2024 after the lows are established on this cycle. We have been warning that this rise would begin AFTER 2017.”
June 9, 2016
“Britain is moving into an Ice Age and energy prices are rising, for the U.K. is as cold today as it was in December,” Armstrong wrote at ArmstrongEconomics. [15]
March 21, 2015
“Instead of wasting all this effort to try to support government raising taxes on people to prevent 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change', it might be better spent informing people we are going back into a cooling period and there will be wild swings back and forth for the next 25 years. It snowed here on Friday and the back 60 degrees for Saturday,” Armstrong wrote in an ArmstrongEconomics article titled “The Ice Age Cometh.”[9]
February 2, 2015
“An investigation of the raw data recording temperature, has revealed that once again these academics are manipulating the data to keep billions of dollars flowing into their hands. No matter how many times they are caught, government will not change course because they want to believe in global warming to justify higher taxes,” Armstrong wrote at ArmstrongEconomics. [8]
May, 2014
“Anyone who thinks that Global Warming is really caused by man is naive to say the least. This is a political agenda to raise taxes by politicians and to reduce population growth among academics.” [7]
“Global Warming is all about money and raising taxes for politicians to pay for their pensions and support all their illegitimate children,” Armstrong wrote at ArmstrongEconomics. [7]
“[P]eople ASSUME that we even have the power with nuclear bombs to destroy then planet. That is probably not even likely. They also assume that if we set one-off all life will be dead forever. They make a lot of assumptions based upon a guess that is NOT even EDUCATED.” [6]
“We can impact a local area, but we CANNOT alter the course of the entire planet. On that score, we are but a pimple on a fly’s ass. So until I see HARD evidence beyond assumptions for a few decades, I will keep it real. We can not alter the trend of a market anymore than we can change the environment of the entire world” (emphasis in original). [6]
Key Deeds
January 16, 2018
In a blog post titled “Is Climate Change a Tool to Eliminate Democracy?” Armstrong argued that “climate change is an agenda to eliminate your freedom. The entire argument is to support a move toward an authoritarian state.” [20]
Armstrong made the unsubstantiated claim that all climate models have been found in error: [20]
“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising.” [20]
He concluded with a call-to-action for readers to resist: [20]
“Resisting will be politically difficult. But resist we should. We are already paying an unnecessary social and economic price for empty gestures. Enough is enough.” [20]
Armstrong reached the following conclusion (emphasis added):
“The climate record shows that the global warming of 1°F observed over the last 100 years is not unusual. Global temperature changes of this magnitude have occurred frequently in the past and are a result of natural factors in climate change.
But is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities? The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case.
All climate studies agree that if the one-degree global warming was produced by an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the additional CO2 first warms the atmosphere, and the warmed atmosphere, in turn, warms the earth’s surface. However, measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. This is just the period in which human made carbon dioxide has been pouring into the atmosphere and according to the climate studies, the resultant atmospheric warming should be clearly evident.
The absence of atmospheric warming proves that the warming of the earth’s surface observed in the last 100 years cannot be due to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human activities. The recent global warming must be the result of natural factors in climate change.”
Skeptical Science has provided an analysis of common assertions made by climate change skeptics. Here is a breakdown of what scientists have said about similar arguments to those in Armstrong's report.
Martin Armstrong has not published any articles in Peer-Reviewed journals, according to a search of Google Scholar. His website provides a full list of his economic publications, mostly through Armstrong Economics, back to 1995.
Martin Armstrong is featured in The Forecaster, a movie that details how he formed the Economic Confidence Model.
Armstrong Economics
Martin Armstrong has started commented regularly on climate change at his blog at Armstrong Economics. Originally dedicated to economic predictions, the blog later featured a number of articles denying the existence or importance of man-made climate change. Samples below:
“Climate Change,” Princeton Economics Research Institute (Published at ArmstrongEconomics.COM). January 7th, 2013. Archived July 10, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/cemue
Stephen Moore previously served as Senior Economist for the Joint Economic Committee under Chairman Dick Armey of Texas (former chair of FreedomWorks) and Research Director of President Reagan’s commission on Privatization in 1987. [1]
Stephen Moore, who has called climate change “climate improvement,” has repeatedly cited the debunked Oregon Petition as well as Bjorn Lomborg's “Copenhagen Consensus” to suggest there is still a debate on climate science. More has also called anyone who believes in man-made climate change “Stalinistic.” [4]
Moore is co-author, with Kathleen Hartnett-White (who also serves on Trump's Economic Advisory Team) of Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy. According to a review of the book in American Thinker, “Rather than worrying that carbon energy resources are destroying the planet and looking to renewable energy as an alternative, the authors suggest we should celebrate the vast contributions fossil fuels made during the past century.” [5]
“What we’ve been trying to do is help advise him a little bit to try to reduce the cost of the plan,” Moore said in an interview. [8]
E&E News noted that “Since Moore came on board this spring to advise Trump on his tax plan, he’s been encouraging Trump to hit back against Democrats’ claims that the transition to more wind and solar energy will be good for the economy and the environment.” [10], [11]
Moore wrote a February 2016 article in The American Spectator featuring a glowing review of Donald Trump:
“Meanwhile, Trump surges. His splendid victory speech last night, was all about love of country – about patriotism,” Moore wrote.
“It is striking that Trump is the anti-Obama in every way. Obama blames America first for every problem on the earth, from global warming to terrorism. Trump emanates love for America and pledges to “make America great again.”
[…]
The rub against Trump that he can't win in November looks to be wrong. Trump certainly has some profound defects and his problem with minorities and women cannot be ignored. He's unpredictable and sometimes crude.
On the other hand, Trump could expand the Republican base to include independents and union Democratic voters. Trump is also getting better each day as he expands his base rather than shrinking it. Trumpmania is a Black Swann political event that we've never seen before and may not ever see again.” [12]
Criticism
Stephen Moore's critics have called Moore a “A voodoo economist … [who uses] especially devious methods to torture the data,” (The New Republic's Jonathan Chait), [13] with a career “marked by a pattern of errors, deception and falsehood,” (Brendan Nyhan and Ben Fritz) [14]. Economist Brad DeLong said that “Moore has zero credibility.” [15]
Economist Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) responded to Moore’s claim that “right-to-work” laws would offer extra protection to workers in Wisconsin in a March 2, 2015, op-ed in The Washington Post: [16]
“Workers in a bargaining unit in non-RTW states don’t even have to pay full union dues. If they object to, say, the union’s political activities, they can pay reduced dues that cover only the costs of negotiating and enforcing the contract. Since that’s most of what local unions do, by the way, such fees amount to 80 percent to 90 percent of full dues.
So when Steve Moore of the Heritage Foundation claims that workers in non-RTW states 'can be compelled to join a union and pay dues at a union shop whether they wish to or not' or that they “can even be forced to pay union dues for partisan political activities with which they don’t agree,” he’s deep within a fact-free zone.” [16]
In a 2015 New York Times blog post, Paul Krugman investigated the “mystery” of Moore’s successful career in economic policy, concluding that Moore is not held accountable for consistently making bad predictions and misstating basic facts about the economy because “incompetence is actually desirable” in his field: [17]
“But here’s the mystery: evidently Moore has had a successful career. Why?
Think about Heritage: It’s immensely wealthy, and could surely afford to hire a technically competent right-wing hack. The Wall Street Journal, similarly, could have attracted someone much less likely to trip over his own intellectual shoelaces. Again, the problem isn’t even that Moore got the macroeconomics of recent years all wrong, although he did; it’s the inability to write without making embarrassing mistakes.
So why is he there (and he’s not alone — there are some other incompetent hacks at Heritage)?
I suspect that the incompetence is actually desirable at some level — a smart hack might turn honest, or something, But it’s remarkable.” [17]
The editorial page director of the Kansas City Star said that she “won’t be running anything else from Stephen Moore” after she discovered “substantial factual errors” in an Op-Ed that Moore had written criticizing economist Paul Krugman. [18]
Stance on Climate Change
June 3, 2016
In an interiew on the Janet Mefford Today Show, Moore described global warming as “one of the greatest propoganda campaigns in world history” and a “dingbat idea,” CNSNews.com reported.[19]
“It’s really amazing, I have to say. I have to tip my hat to the left: This has been one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in world history that the left has pulled off,” Moore said. [19]
“I mean, they’ve taken this dingbat idea of global climate change and they’ve put it in the schools, they’ve put it in the movies, they’ve put it in the media and the churches — you know, I’m Catholic, even the Pope talks about climate change.”
“So, it’s very alarming how this propaganda campaign, that they made this stuff out of, almost completely out of thin air and they’ve convinced millions and millions of thought leaders that this stuff is real.”
“They're becoming more militaristic. They are young Stalinists. I can't go on college campuses today even question their religion of global warming — and it is a religion by the way.” [19]
Key Quotes
February 14, 2018
“We need a change in strategy and philosophy when it comes to mining. For federal land development, the 20th-century philosophy of 'lock up and preserve' needs to be replaced with an ethic of 'use and explore.' We have hundreds of years of these resources with existing technology,” Moore wrote at the Daily Journal in an article titled “Let's make America a mineral superpower.” [49]
January 28, 2018
Moore suggested that President Donald Trump may be the reason for a boost in the economy, and that “the economy was decelerating at the end of the Obama presidency”: [51]
“If Mr. Trump had continued Mr. Obama’s policies, one might not credit him for today’s strong economy. But Mr. Trump has begun to systematically overturn Obama policies on taxes, regulations, energy, climate change, net neutrality, budget priorities and health care — as well as replacing Janet Yellen as chairwoman of the Federal Reserve. Trumponomics is Obamanomics in reverse,” Moore wrote at the New York Times.
November 15, 2016
“We have the cleanest coal in the world,” Moore said on Fox Business's Varney & Co.[20]
September, 2016
Media Matters reported that a week after Stephen Moore said that Donald Trump's economic plan was designed to be vague, he contradicted himself by saying it was the “most detailed” plan of any candidate: [21]
“But, back to this idea that there's no detailed plan, because I never really answered your question about that. We've put forward the most detailed economic plan, I think, of any candidate in 40 years. I mean, we've got a very detailed tax plan.” [21]
August 1, 2016
On the August 1 edition of C-SPAN2'S Book TV, Moore compared fracking to a cure for cancer, Media Matters reported.
“Now, look, to be against fracking is like being against a cure for cancer. This is one of the great seismic technological breakthroughs. We're way ahead of the rest of the world. It's giving us access to huge amounts of energy at very low prices. How could anybody be against this?” [6]
July, 2016
Appearing on the July 29 edition of Fox News'Your World with Neil Cavuto, Moore declared: [22]
“Now, why not tax the rich? I'll tell the mayor why not. When you talk about those people in the top one percent, Mayor, you know this, over half of them, nearly 2/3rds of them, are small business owners, investors, and operators. How are you going to get more businesses and how are you going to get more jobs, Mr. Mayor, if you're going to tax the very businesses that create the jobs?”
March 15, 2015
“I am no scientist, but I’m highly skeptical of a movement whose first advice is to steer the U.S. economy off a cliff toward financial ruin,” Moore wrote in a Washington Times Article.[23]
“The problem I have with though, this circles back to the whole issue of when we pay for gasoline at the pump. If you raise the taxes on gasoline and oil, the price of gasoline and oil isn't going to go down. The price of gasoline and oil is going to go up,” Moore declared on an edition of Fox News's Happening Now. [25]
“I hope, I sincerely hope the president doesn't really believe that we can engine and power a $15 trillion industrial economy with windmills. It ain't going to happen,” Moore said on Fox News's Hannity. [27], [28]
“What I object to about this report is some of the language in this is sort of almost Stalinistic, that there’s an unequivocal conclusion that it’s inarguable that this is happening, that there’s overwhelming agreement among the scientists. None of that is true.”
“We’ve talked about global warming as climate improvement. […] The good news is that the bad news is wrong.” [4]
Key Deeds
August 19, 2018
Moore wrote an op-ed that was published at The Washington Timesand RealClear Politics suggesting that recent data about GHG emissions in the United States was justification that “President Trump was completely right to pull the United States out of the flawed Paris accord.” [53], [54]
“Those who think they are helping save the planet by purchasing an electric car, or putting a solar panel on their roof, or trying to shut down coal production in the United States are barking up the wrong tree. If we want to stop greenhouse gases, there is no way to make progress without China and India on board — which they clearly are not,” Moore wrote. [53]
Earlier in the summer,InsideClimateNews reported on the same issue as Moore. However, ICN noted that in 2017 “[w]hile most countries' emissions increased, some, including the United States, saw declines driven largely by renewable energy deployments.” [55]
Rather than reaching Moore's conclusion, that “[t]hose who think they are helping save the planet by purchasing an electric car, or putting a solar panel on their roof, or trying to shut down coal production in the United States are barking up the wrong tree,” ICN highlighted how market forces have been partially responsible for the increase in renewable energy as well. [53]
“Renewable energy provided a record 17 percent of U.S. electricity generation in 2017. That's a percentage that will likely continue to grow, said Glen Peters, researcher director at the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo,” the ICN article noted. [55]
January 29, 2018
The Washington Times announced that Moore would become its new associate opinion editor. “There is no greater voice preaching prosperity and free markets in Washington today than Stephen Moore,” Times Opinion Editor Charles Hurt said. “He doesn’t just talk and write about these things. He has a track record of proving their success. We are delighted to have him join the Opinion pages.” [50]
“It’s exciting to add to my role at The Washington Times. The paper has long served as a premier news outlet in the nation’s capital,” Mr. Moore said. “The commentary section has been a must-read for conservatives every morning for as long as I have lived in Washington.” [50]
Doug Domenech, director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation's “Fueling Freedom” project, wrote about the proceedings at The Hill. Domenech outlined the common climate change denial message shared among the speakers: “Is climate change real? Yes, it has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Is man making an impact on the climate? Perhaps but in very small ways. But the overarching consensus remains the climate change we are experiencing is by no means catastrophic.” [48]
STUARTVARNEY (Host): This is a quote from you. Defy Stalinist global warming rules and burn coal. Are we gonna do that, and when?
STEPHENMOORE (Trump Adviser): Yeah. I mean look, Donald Trump made a very specific promise to the coal miners of America: We're going to try to put as many of them back in their jobs. These Stalinistic rules that deal with climate change have put so many tens of thousands of our coal miners out of work. By the way, Stuart, do you know how much coal – guess how many years of coal we have in this country. Just take a wild guess.
VARNEY: Couple of hundred years worth?
MOORE: You're wrong. 500 years. We have more coal than any other country in the world. We're the Saudi Arabia of coal. Hell yes, we should use our coal resources. And by the way, for the environmentalists, we have the cleanest coal in the world. Great story in The Wall Street Journal people didn't pay too much attention to on Wednesday because of the election: China is building like 100 new coal plants. How does it help the environment when we shut down our coal and China builds ten plants for every one we shut down? How does that reduce global warming?
August 1, 2016
During an episode of C-SPAN2's Book TV, while discussing his new book Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy, Stephen Moore stated that opposing fracking “is like being against a cure for cancer” because it is “one of the great seismic technological breakthroughs” that is “giving us huge amounts of energy at very low prices.” Moore went on to criticize Florida high school students opposing fracking, saying they were “indoctrinated in their high school classes” to think that “somehow fracking is a bad thing.” Video below. [6]
November 2, 2015
Stephen Moore appeared on the November 2 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co. The host, Stuart Varney, claimed a NASA study is “putting some doubt that some global warming theories are going the right way. That's NASA saying that.” [7]
Varney later brought on Stephen Moore, who complained that the media touts every “story that seems to validate global warming,” while supposedly ignoring studies like the NASA study, which are an “indication that it's actually not happening.” At the end of the segment, Moore joked that “this might be the start of another Ice Age.” Media Transparency noted that Moore was distorting the original NASA study. [7]
July 2015
Moore founded a group called the Committee to Unleash Prosperity with fellow economists Steve Forbes, Larry Kudlow, and Arthur B. Laffer. The group reportedly “aims to end America's growth slump and restore faith in the American Dream.” [56]
May 10, 2015
Stephen Moore declared in a Washington Times column that ”[t]he green energy movement in America is dead.” Media Matters notes that a video, airing directly above Moore's column, “makes clear that his characterization of the U.S. clean energy industry is blatantly false.” [30], [31]
According to Media Matters, “Moore egregiously distorted quotes from the IEA to falsely claim it 'concedes that green energy is in fast retreat' and that the clean energy industry 'is getting crushed' by low fossil fuel prices.”
April 5, 2013
Stephen Moore was confronted by science education activist Zack Kopplin about myths about climate science funding on an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. Kopplin points out that Moore, who questioned the need for funding research on “snail mating habits,” is “not a scientist”: [32]
Moore has been contributing editor to both the National Review, was on the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), and on the Economic Board of Advisors for Time. His television appearances have included CNN’s Inside Politics, Crossfire and Moneyline, NBC’s Nightly News, Fox Morning News, and The McLaughlin Group. [1]
Moore is the co-author of It’s Getting Better All the Time: 100 Greatest Trends of the Past 100 Years and author of Government: America’s #1 Growth Industry and the editor of Restoring the Dream: What House Republicans Plan to Do Now to Strengthen the Family, Balance the Budget, and Replace Welfare (Times Mirror, 1995). [1]
Stephen Moore has been a prolific contributor to a range of publications including:
Donald Trump graduated from the Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in economics in 1968. [1]
Background
Donald J. Trump, 45th president of the United States, is an American businessman, real-estate developer, and reality television personality. Trump announced his candidacy for president of the United States in 2015, and became the official Republican candidate for president on July 19, 2016. Forbes listed Donald Trump's net worth at $3.7 billion as of November, 2016 (down from $4.1 billion in 2015). [1], [225]
Donald Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese, has picked a range of advisors with links to the fossil fuel industry. Trump's team includes Steve Bannon, former head of Breitbart News, a network that hosts such columnists as James Delingpole who called Climate Change “the biggest scam in the history of the world.” Scott Pruitt, administrator of the EPA under the Trump Administration, has a long history of suing the agency he new heads. [2], [220], [221]
When asked what departments or services he would cut, Trump pointed to environmental protection which he called a “disgrace.” When asked who would protect the environment, Trump replied “we'll be fine with the environment.” Prominent climate change denier Myron Ebell was picked by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to lead Trump's transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). [219], [5]
Trump's Energy Plan vows to “Rescind all job-destroying Obama executive actions” and “eliminate all barriers” to energy production through strategies such as increasing oil and gas drilling on federal lands, opening up the Atlantic to offshore drilling, and repealing the Clean Power Plan. [6], [7]
Energy Policy
Trump's “Energy Independence” plan promises to do away with many regulations on the fossil fuel industry, open up offshore drilling and drilling on federal lands, and “refocus the EPA”: [8]
“Rather than continuing the current path to undermine and block America’s fossil fuel producers, the Trump Administration will encourage the production of these resources by opening onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands and waters. We will streamline the permitting process for all energy projects, including the billions of dollars in projects held up by President Obama, and rescind the job-destroying executive actions under his Administration. We will end the war on coal, and rescind the coal mining lease moratorium, the excessive Interior Department stream rule, and conduct a top-down review of all anti-coal regulations issued by the Obama Administration. We will eliminate the highly invasive 'Waters of the US' rule, and scrap the $5 trillion dollar Obama-Clinton Climate Action Plan and the Clean Power Plan and prevent these unilateral plans from increasing monthly electric bills by double-digits without any measurable effect on Earth’s climate. Energy is the lifeblood of modern society. It is the industry that fuels all other industries. We will lift the restrictions on American energy, and allow this wealth to pour into our communities. […]”
Lesley Stahl: “Do you still think that climate change is a hoax?”
President Donald Trump: “I think something's happening. Something's changing and it'll change back again. I don't think it's a hoax, I think there's probably a difference. But I don't know that it's manmade. I will say this. I don't wanna give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't wanna lose millions and millions of jobs. I don't wanna be put at a disadvantage.”
Lesley Stahl: “I wish you could go to Greenland, watch these huge chunks of ice just falling into the ocean, raising the sea levels.”
President Donald Trump: “And you don't know whether or not that would have happened with or without man. You don't know.”
Lesley Stahl: “Well, your scientists, your scientists–”
President Donald Trump: “No, we have–”
Lesley Stahl: “At NOAA and NASA–”
President Donald Trump: “We have scientists that disagree with that.”
Lesley Stahl: “You know, I– I was thinking what if he said, 'No, I've seen the hurricane situations, I've changed my mind. There really is climate change.' And I thought, 'Wow, what an impact.'”
President Donald Trump: “Well– I'm not denying.”
Lesley Stahl: “What an impact that would make.”
President Donald Trump: “I'm not denying climate change. But it could very well go back. You know, we're talkin' about over a millions–”
Lesley Stahl: “But that's denying it.”
President Donald Trump: –of years. They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael.”
Lesley Stahl: “Who says that? 'They say'?”
President Donald Trump: “People say. People say that in the–”
Lesley Stahl:” Yeah, but what about the scientists who say it's worse than ever?”
President Donald Trump: “You'd have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda, Lesley.”
Lesley Stahl: “I can't bring them in.”
President Donald Trump: “Look, scientists also have a political agenda.”
December 28, 2017
President Trump went to Twitter to suggest the country could use some global warming during the cold snap: [245]
“In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record,” Trump tweeted. “Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONSOFDOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!”
In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONSOFDOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!
In an interview that The New York Times said demonstrated his “eagerness to please his audience and his tendency to speak in generalities,” Donald Trump did not repeat his promise to abandon the Paris climate accord. Trump said “I’m looking at it very closely.” But he said “I have an open mind to it.” [149]
When asked about the link between human activity and climate change, he said“I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much.” [150]
In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Trump's chief of staff Reince Priebus explained that Trump's “major flips on policy this week in an interview with the New York Times,” as host Chris Wallace put it. As ThinkProgress reports, Trump had not been entirely forthright with the Times. Priebus told Wallace: [160]
“As far as this issue on climate change — the only thing he [Trump] was saying after being asked a few questions about it is, look, he’ll have an open mind about it but he has his default position, which most of it is a bunch of bunk, but he’ll have an open mind and listen to people.”
July 26, 2016
On Fox News, Bill O'Reilly asked Trump if it was “true” that he had “called climate change a hoax.” Trump replied that he “might have” done so following the release of the ClimateGate emails. “Yeah, I probably did,” he added. “I see what's going on.” Trump then said fossil fuels “could have a minor impact” on the climate but “nothing [compared] to what they're talking about.” [169], [179]
FREDHIATT: “Last one: You think climate change is a real thing? Is there human-caused climate change?”
TRUMP: “I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes – if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things; now they’re using “extreme weather” I guess more than any other phrase. I am not – I know it hurts me with this room, and I know it’s probably a killer with this room – but I am not a believer. Perhaps there’s a minor effect, but I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.” [10]
December 30, 2015
Trump said that President Obama was worrying too much about “the carbon footprint” and climate change, which he then erroneously attributed to the ozone layer: [176]
“I want to use hair spray,” complained Trump. “They say, 'Don't use hair spray, it's bad for the ozone.' So I'm sitting in this concealed apartment, this concealed unit…It's sealed, it's beautiful. I don't think anything gets out. And I'm not supposed to be using hair spray?”
He continued, “So Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and the—a lot of it's a hoax, it's a hoax. I mean, it's a money-making industry, okay? It's a hoax, a lot of it.”
December 1, 2015
Donald Trump criticized President Obama for pursuing the Paris climate agreement. He posted to Instagram: [175]
“While the world is in turmoil and falling apart in so many different ways—especially with ISIS—our president is worried about global warming,” he said. “What a ridiculous situation.” [175]
Mother Jones notes that “It remains unclear how those things are contradictory.” [175]
“I'm not a believer in man-made global warming. It could be warming, and it's going to start to cool at some point. And you know, in the early, in the 1920s, people talked about global cooling…They thought the Earth was cooling. Now, it's global warming…But the problem we have, and if you look at our energy costs, and all of the things that we're doing to solve a problem that I don't think in any major fashion exists.” [174]
Mother Jones reports that The day after announcing his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination, Trump appeared on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, where he said he was “not a believer in man-made” warming. He added, “When I hear Obama saying that climate change is the No. 1 problem, it is just madness.” [169]
2015
Donald Trump dismissed global warming on the premier of Celebrity Apprentice in early 2016. Video below: [171]
Despite this statement, Trump had also donated $5,000 of his foundation's money to Protect Our Winters, a group dedicated to combating climate change. According to the New York Daily News, Trump had made the donation at the request of Olympic snowboarding gold medalist Jamie Anderson, who was one of the contestants on Trump's Celebrity Apprentice reality show. [172], [173]
January 29, 2014
“Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!” – Via Twitter. [2]
“Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air - not the same old climate change (global warming) bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense.” — Later that day, via Twitter. [2]
Below are additional quotes Trump wrote on twitter, from January 1 to 28, calling global warming a “Hoax”: [169]
January 6, 2014
On an episode of Fox News's Fox & Friends, Donald Trump called global warming a “hoax,” and attributes it to scientists “having a lot of fun.” Trump also said restrictions on fossil fuel use were making America less competitive. Video below: [12]
November 6, 2012
“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” — Via Twitter.[2]
CLINTON: “Some country is going to be the clean- energy superpower of the 21st century. Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real.”
TRUMP: “I did not. I did not. I do not say that.”
CLINTON: ” I think science is real.”
TRUMP:” I do not say that.”
February 16, 2010
Mother Jones notes that wiscussing the so-called “ClimateGate scandal,” in which climate scientists were wrongly accused by climate change deniers of forming a conspiracy to fabricate global warming, Trump said on Fox News that there was an email “sent a couple months ago by one of the leaders of global warming, the initiative…almost saying—I guess they're saying it's a con.” He added that “in Washington, where I'm building a big development, nobody can move because we have 48 inches of snow.” Video below. [169], [170]
February 14, 2010
In one of Trump's first flip-flops on climate change, he mentioned that Al Gore should be stripped of the Nobel Prize because it was cold outside:
“With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore…Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn't care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America's stupidity,” Trump told members of the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester.Mother Jones notes that Trump would later say he was joking about rescinding the Nobel Prize. [168], [169]
December, 2009
As reported at Grist, contrary to his more recent statements on global warming, Donald Trump was once a signatory to a full-page New York Times ad calling for climate action: [167]
“If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet,” the letter declared. [167]
The letter, also signed by Trump's three children, called for passing U.S. climate legislation, and green energy investment: [167]
“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today,” the letter reads. “Please allow us, the United States of America, to serve in modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our planet.” [167]
“Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune,” Trump announced in his speech at the White House Rose Garden.
“Staying in the agreement could also pose serious obstacles for the United States as we begin the process of unlocking the restrictions on America’s abundant energy reserves, which we have started very strongly.” [218]
October, 2016
In a 2015 Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace, Trump responds to the question of which departments or services he would cut: [5]
“Environmental protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations. They're making it impossible…”
Wallace interjected, “Who's going to protect the environment?”
“They — we'll be fine with the environment,” Trump replied. “We can leave a little bit, but you can't destroy businesses.”
Trump also noted that “I may cut Department of Education. I believe Common Core is a very bad thing.” [14]
“I see over here: 'Trump digs coal,'” he said. “That's true. I do.” He went on to promise an increase in coal mining jobs by repealing Obama's “ridiculous rules and regulations.”
March 29, 2016
Donald Trump responded in an American Energy Alliance (AEA) Questionnaire: [15]
“Under my administration, all EPA rules will be reviewed. Any regulation that imposes undue costs on business enterprises will be eliminated.”
1997
As reported by Mother Jones, Trump believed in an anti-asbestos conspiracy as he wrote in his 1997 book, The Art of Comeback: [16]
“I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented. Millions of truckloads of this incredible fire-proofing material were taken to special 'dump sites' and asbestos was replaced by materials that were supposedly safe but couldn't hold a candle to asbestos in limiting the ravages of fire.” [16]
Trump also claimed that asbestos is ”100 percent safe, once applied,” and that it just “got a bad rap.” [16]
“A lot of people could say if the World Trade Center had asbestos, it wouldn't have burned down. It wouldn't have melted. Ok. A lot of people in my industry think asbestos is the greatest fireproofing material ever made.” [16]
Key Deeds
July 31, 2018
As Politico reported, Trump went to Twitter to criticize the Koch Brothers who he said “have become a total joke in real Republican circles” after they had criticized Trump and his trade policies. In a Colorado Springs meeting about a week prior, the Kochs presented a video warning of the dangers of Trump's anti-free-trade sentiments. [256], [257]
In the video, Charles Koch warns that the current “rise in protectionism” represents “a natural tendency, but it’s a destructive one.”
The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade. I never sought their support because I don’t need their money or bad ideas. They love my Tax & Regulation Cuts, Judicial picks & more. I made…..
Today it was a great honor to interview @realDonaldTrump about student issues and the amazing success of this administration
The accomplishments are historic, fixed the trajectory of America, and are beginning the process of turning this country around! #MAGApic.twitter.com/Rhlf8bVim7
Charlie Kirk: “One of the things you've done so successfully during your campaign and presidency is crush political correctness, and what the college network that we represent—I represent a network on 1200 college campuses—is, it's harder than ever to espouse support of your presidency and the ideas that you're fighting for.
So thank you for what you're doing to give us the courage of our convictions to fight against political correctness. But what advice do you have for young patriots and Conservatives on campus that support your agenda but are being ridiculed and silenced because of administrators that clamps own one see speech?”
Trump:“So that's a great question. I think the numbers are actually much different than people think. I think we have a lot of support. If they have one campus or two campuses and we know what they are it gets all the publicity. We have campuses where you have a vast majority of people that are perhaps like many of the people in this room: You could call it Conservative, you could call it whatever you want, but they're people that want free speech.
If you look at what's going on with free speech, with the super left, with ANTIFA, with all of these characters. I'll tell you what, they get a lot of publicity, but you go to the real campuses and you go all over the country, you go out to the real campus and you go all over the country… you go out to the Middle West you go out to even to the coast in many cases. We have tremendous support. I would say we have majority support. I think it's highly overblown. Highly overblown.”
Kirk:“I totally agree, and we see it on the ground. And so people say, hey I'm a Trump supporter, I'm just not allowed to say it because of the culture that's been created by the administrators and the professors.
And kind of piggybacking off of that, what you see on college campuses and the speakers being disinvited and you know the assault on these ideas, I think it's so important what your administration is doing for the Department of Justice to support these lawsuits to help advance, you know, this free speech movement on campus.
So, kind of talking generationally in general, this is something I'm quite curious about and lot of people ask me: I consider you to be one of the most successful businesspeople in American history and your successful presidential run is something that all people, young people included, should look up to. What advice would you give to the 25-year-old Donald Trump knowing what you know today?
Trump:“Don't run for president.” Laughter and applause.
Kirk:“But we're glad you did.”
Trump:“Well, I was talking to Mercedes and Sarah walking off for just a… you know the Oval Office is right across the street… and I said, all my life I've gotten really—you know look, every one in a while we all get a knock—but I got the greatest publicity. I was getting such great… until I ran for office. And it's been… but people get it. People really do get it. [12:07]
There is a lot of fake news out there. Nobody had any idea, and I'm actually proud of the fact I exposed it to a large extent because we exposed it. That's something… that's an achievement.” […]
March 2018
The Executive Office released a report of “Science & Technology Highlights” in the first year of the Trump Administration. In a section on “Energy Dominance,” the report includes comments that Trump made at a June 30, 2017 “Unleashing American Energy” event: [254]
“The truth is that we have near limitless supplies of energy in our country. Powered by new innovation and technology, we are now on the cusp of a true energy revolution,” Trump had said at the event. [254]
According to the report, Trump had also called for a “complete review of U.S. nuclear energy policy” at the event, including what the report describes as “a focus on restoring U.S. nuclear R&D capabilities and enabling innovation in the development and deployment of new reactors.” [254]
The report also noted that domestic nuclear test facilities would resume operations: “For the first time in 23 years, the U.S. Department of Energy has resumed operations at the Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT).” [254]
January 28, 2018
Piers Morgan interviewed Donald Trump. While some headlines following the interview suggested that Trump had made a dramatic reversal on his position on the UN Paris Climate Agreement (“Would I go back in? Yeah, I’d go back in,” said Trump, after repeating claims that the pact was a “horrible deal” for the U.S.), DeSmog notes that this was not a U-turn of Trump's views and that Trump's views are the same as he held when announcing his withdrawal from the Agreement in June 2017. [252]
PM: “Do you believe in climate change? Do you believe it exists?”
DT: “There is a cooling and there is a heating and I mean, look – it used to not be climate change. It used to be global warming. Right?”
PM: “Right.”
DT: “That wasn’t working too well, because it was getting too cold all over the place. The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records, so OK, they’re at a record level. There were so many thing happening, Piers. I’ll tell you what I believe in. I believe in clear air. I believe in crystal clear beautiful water. I believe in just having good cleanliness in all. Now, that being said, if somebody said go back into the Paris Accord, if we could go back into the Paris Accord, it would have to be a completely different deal because we had a horrible deal, As usual, they took advantage of the United States. We were in a terrible deal. Would I go back in? Yeah, I’d go back in. I like, as you know, I like Emmanuel… No, no, I like Emmanuel, I would love to, but it’s got to be a good deal for the United States.”
January 17, 2018
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump's EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined his plans to remake the EPA in 2018. His goals include rewriting rules for power plant emissions made under the Obama administration, and speeding the permit review process under the EPA. [251]
Pruitt emphasized he wanted to move fast. “There’s tremendous opportunity to show really significant results to the American people in a really short time frame,” Pruitt said. [251]
WSJ author Timothy Puko notes that Pruitt had memorialized the moment that Trump announced the exit from the Paris climate agreement by hanging a framed photo of the two of them in the Rose Garden with an autograph of Pruitt's prepared remarks, along with the comment “Scott—Great Job!” [251]
One of Pruitt's goals is to begin weekly performance assessments for ever EPA office, and to get the permitting process to under six months. Former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy commented on Pruitt's shift of focus for the EPA away from climate change. [251]
“Everything the agency does is to protect public health and the public from future risks,” said McCarthy. “You don’t stop smoking because it kills you when you smoke the cigarette; it’s because it kills you later. It’s the same argument with climate change. You take action today to protect health today and in the future.” [251]
“Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating 17 candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican party,” Trump said in the statement. [248]
“Lower taxes mean bigger paychecks, more jobs, and stronger growth,” he said, describing existing corporate taxes as a “giant self-inflicted economic wound.” [17:47], [238]
View the full 34-minute video of his speech below: Some notable quotes below (emphasis added): [237]
“We believe we should preserve our history, not tear it down. Now they're even trying to destroy statues of Christopher Columbus. What's next? It has to be stopped. It's heritage.” [7:19]
“We believe that strong nations must have strong borders and that our most important job is to serve the needs of America and the American people. That includes common-sense reforms like cracking down on sanctuary cities, ending catch-and-release, and very importantly ending chain migration.” [8:12]
“This is the message I delivered in my address to the United Nations. I told the leaders in that hall […] that just like I expect them to put the needs of their countries first, I will always put the needs of our country first. That is why we are withdrawing from one-sided international deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Accord.” [9:09]
Noting increases in defense spending, Trump said “As Ronald Reagan said, we believe in peace through strength.”[10:17]
“We have taken action to repeal the EPA's so-called 'Clean Power Plan' and we have ended, finally, the war on clean, beautiful coal. People going back two work. They're going back to work.” [12:26]
Hartnett-White has a history of representing fossil fuel interests. During her tenure as chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), appointed by then-governor Rick Perry, the TCEQ was found to “not consistently ensure violators are held accountable.” According to a 2003 Texas State Audit, polluters “often have economic benefits that exceed their penalties, which could reduce their incentive to comply.” [223]
As head of the CEQ, Hartnett-White would be in charge of coordinating interagency science, climate, and environmental policy and oversee things such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process and agency compliance with that law. [222]
“Though CEQ oversees the NEPA process, it remains unclear how seriously Hartnett-White will take the NEPA review process, for decades seen as a bedrock of U.S. environmental regulation since NEPA became law in 1970,” DeSmog's Steve Horn reported. [222]
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a press statement critical of Hartnett-White's appointment:
“At least Butch and Sundance had to put some effort into robbing banks and trains,” Ken Cook, EWG's president, said in a press statement. “If Hartnett-White joins Administrator Pruitt, polluters will stroll through the front doors of both the EPA and the White House, no questions asked, as the rampant looting of environmental and public health protection policies continues.” [224]
“Here’s the president’s message: The war on coal is over,” Pruitt announced earlier at a gathering with coal miners in Hazard, Kentucky. [239]
The official EPA press release announced the repeal of what it described as “the so-called 'Clean Power Plan (CPP)'”:
“After reviewing the CPP, EPA has proposed to determine that the Obama-era regulation exceeds the Agency’s statutory authority. Repealing the CPP will also facilitate the development of U.S. energy resources and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens associated with the development of those resources, in keeping with the principles established in President Trump’s Executive Order on Energy Independence,” the press release read. [240]
As the New York Times reported, the decision is a “personal triumph for Mr. Pruitt, who as Oklahoma attorney general helped lead more than two dozen states in challenging the rule in the courts.” [241]
“The United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord,” Trump said, “but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States and its businesses, workers and taxpayers.”
“We'll see if we can make a deal that's fair,” he added. “If we can, that's great. If we can't, that's fine.”
Shortly before the press conference began, CNN reported that the White House had told Congress of the decision.
“We will initiate the process, which, all told, takes four years in total,” White House energy policy adviser and former fossil fuel lobbyist Michael Catanzarotold Congressional staffers in a conference call just before Trump's speech. “But we’re going to make very clear to the world that we’re not going to be abiding by what the previous administration agreed to.”
Reuters reported that Trump had misunderstood research that he had cited as justification for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. Trump had said during the speech that even if fully implemented, the Paris agreement would not have a large impact:
“Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100,” Trump said.
Erwin Monier, one of the study's authors and a a lead researcher at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said “We certainly do not support the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris agreement,” [212]
“If we don't do anything, we might shoot over 5 degrees or more and that would be catastrophic,” said John Reilly, the co-director of the program. He also noted that MIT's scientists were not offered a chance to explain their work, and were not contacted by the White House. [212]
DeSmog looked deeper into Trump's sources, and found that when Trump claimed “onerous energy restrictions” would be placed on the U.S., he was citing figures from the National Economic Research Associates (NERA). NERA is the same group that had carried out a study for the tobacco industry in the 1990s that concluded there wasn't a link between tobacco advertising and smoking levels. [214]
An AP Fact Check noted that the study “makes worst-case assumptions that may inflate the cost of meeting U.S. targets under the Paris accord while largely ignoring the economic benefits to U.S. businesses from building and operating renewable energy projects.” [217]
March 24, 2017
President Trump announced that he had approved the Keystone XL pipeline, reversing the pervious decision by former President Barack Obama to reject it. While Trump said the project would create 28,000 U.S. jobs Reuters noted that a 2014 State Department study had predicted just 3,900 construction jobs and 35 permanent jobs would be created by the project. [243]
As DeSmog Canada reported, despite Trump granting the presidential permit required to build the pipeline, this does not guarantee it will be built. [242]
“It's going to be an incredible pipeline, greatest technology known to man or woman. And frankly, we're very proud of it,” Trump said in the official announcement of the pipeline's approval. “When completed, the Keystone XL pipeline will span 900 miles – wow – and have the capacity to deliver more than 800,000 barrels of oil per day to the Gulf Coast refineries. That's some big pipeline.” [244]
AsDeSmog reported, Catanzaro served as a top energy aide during Trump's presidential campaign. According to GreenWire, he is expected to serve as special assistant to Trump for energy and environmental issues under the umbrella of the White House National Economic Council. [202], [200]
January 25, 2017
Trump's team announced that the Atlantic Coast pipeline would be among the White House's top priorities for infrastructure projects. [195]
DeSmog reported that, after President Donald Trump assumed power in the White House, the climate change section of the White House's website was removed. Journalist Brian Kahn of ClimateCentral.com was the first to point this out on Twitter. [198]
The new web section does mention environmental protection, but the word “climate” appears only once, and only in reference to the administration's plans to do away with President Obama's Climate Action Plan. [198]
“If the goal is to drain the swamp in D.C., Tillerson might not be your man; Exxon’s business plan continues to require raising the level of the ocean to the point where Foggy Bottom will be well underwater,” said 350.org founder Bill McKibben in a press release. “But this is certainly a good way to make clear exactly who’ll be running the government in a Trump administration — just cut out the middleman and hand it directly to the fossil fuel industry.”
Bloomberg reports on a memo by President-Elect Trump's transition team requesting a list of employees and contractors who attended United Nations climate meetings. Information sought included agency loan programs, research activities, and the basis for statistics regarding the Obama administration's social cost of carbon metrics. [180]
Catherine Trywick at Bloomberg notes that “there is a fear that people who worked on climate policy under Obama could be targeted under the Trump administration, because some of the names who have been floated as cabinet members are very hostile towards climate change and environmental concerns.” [180]
Senator Ed Markey responded by sending a letter to Trump, warming that the punishment of agency workers carrying out policies his administration disagrees with “would be tantamount to an illegal modern-day political witch hunt, and would have a profoundly chilling impact on our dedicated federal workforce.”[180]
Energy Department employees said they had been unsettled by the information request by Trump's team. [180]
“It’s certainly alarming that they would be targeting specific employees in this way,” said Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Scientists are looking at this with some suspicion, because many of the people who have been chomping at the bit to dismantle federal climate change science programs are now deeply embedded in the transition.” [180]
The Intercept reports that Donald Trump's first pick for the NASA transition team is Christopher Shank, a climate change denier who previously worked with Rep. Lamar Smith. Shank has criticized NASA for the scientific data it releases, saying in a 2015 panel that “The rhetoric that’s coming out, the hottest year in history, actually is not backed up by the science — or that the droughts, the fires, the hurricanes, etc., are caused by climate change, but it’s just weather.” [183]
September 22, 2016
Donald Trump was a keynote speaker at the “Shale Insight 2016” conference, featuring major companies from the oil and gas industry. [17]
“It's great to be with so many of my friends,” Trump began. “Oh, you will like me so much.”
“Do you know all of my life, that business has never had problems, but in the last seven or eight years, it's been tough,” Trump said. “With the EPA, with all of the difficulties you're going through.” [17]
DeSmog's Sharon Kelly notes that, despite's Trump's statement, the Marcellus shale industry barely existed eight years ago.
“America is sitting on a treasure trove of untapped energy,” Trump told the crowd. “Some $50 trillion in shale energy, oil reserves and natural gas on federal lands, in addition to hundreds of years of coal energy reserves. It's all upside for this country.” [17]
The Washington Examiner reported that, at the conference, Trump backed off of his prior statement that he would eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency as part of his plan to eliminate the federal budget deficit. [194]
“I will refocus the EPA on its core mission of ensuring clean air, and clean, safe drinking water for all Americans,” Trump said at the conference. “I believe firmly in conserving our wonderful natural resources and beautiful natural habitats. My environmental agenda will be guided by true specialists in conservation, not those with radical political agendas.” [194]
Trump cited a study by the industry-funded Institute for Energy Research (IER), declaring that opening up federal land to oil and gas drilling could contribute to $20 trillion in economic activity over the next 40 years. Trump also promised to open up drilling on the coasts: [194]
“Our energy policy will make full use of our domestic energy sources, including traditional and renewable energy sources,” Trump said. [194]
Trump also said that he would further open up the Marcellus and Utica shale regions to hydraulic fracturing (fracking). [194]
“The development of the Marcellus and Utica shales will fundamentally change the economic landscape of this region and our country, bringing extraordinary new prosperity to millions,” Trump said. [194]
May 17, 2016
In an interview with Reuters, Donald Trump promised that he would renegotiate or pull America out entirely from the Paris Climate Agreement: [3]
“I will be looking at that very, very seriously, and at a minimum I will be renegotiating those agreements, at a minimum. And at a maximum I may do something else,” Trump told Reuters.
“But those agreements are one-sided agreements and they are bad for the United States.”
Trump said that he did not belive China would adhere to its pledge under Paris:
“Not a big fan because other countries don’t adhere to it, and China doesn’t adhere to it, and China’s spewing into the atmosphere,” he said.
The Obama administration pledged to cut emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025 over 2005, while China promised to halt emissions increases by 2030.
“This is another example of Trump’s dangerous lack of judgment and the very real impacts it could have for all of us,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the U.S.-based environmental group League of Conservation Voters.
May 26, 2016
Trump spoke about his “America First Energy Plan,” promising that during his first 100 days in office he would “rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including” his landmark climate regulations, “cancel the Paris Climate Agreement,” and “stop all payments of US tax dollars to UN global warming programs.” [178]
Trump detailed his “100 day action plan” as follows:
“We’re going to rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
We’re going to save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s extremist agenda.
I’m going to ask Trans Canada to renew its permit application for the Keystone Pipeline.
We’re going to lift moratoriums on energy production in federal areas
We’re going to revoke policies that impose unwarranted restrictions on new drilling technologies. These technologies create millions of jobs with a smaller footprint than ever before.
We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.
Any regulation that is outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers, or contrary to the national interest will be scrapped. We will also eliminate duplication, provide regulatory certainty, and trust local officials and local residents.
Any future regulation will go through a simple test: is this regulation good for the American worker? If it doesn’t pass this test, the rule will not be approved.”
March 3, 2016
Trump attended the 11th GOP candidate's debate in Detroit where declared that, as part of proposed tax cuts, he would cut the “Department of Environmental Protection,” by which he presumably meant the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The full quote below, as noted by The Washington Post: [193]
CHRISWALLACE (MODERATOR): “Mr. Trump, your proposed tax cut would add $10 trillion to the nation's debt over 10 years, even if the economy grows the way that you say it will. You insist that you could make up for a good deal of that, you say, by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.”
TRUMP: “Correct.”
WALLACE: “Like what? And please be specific.”
TRUMP: “Department of Education. We're cutting Common Core. We're getting rid of Common Core. We're bringing education locally. Department of Environmental Protection. We are going to get rid are of it in almost every form. We're going to have little tidbits left but we're going to take a tremendous amount out.”
We have various other things. If you look at the IRS, if you look at every single agency, we can cut it down, and I mean really cut it down and save. The waste, fraud, and abuse is massive.”[193]
Trump's 2016 campaign was made successful through a range of support from corporations, labor unions, and other groups. Below is a summary of Committees who supported Trump, based on data from Opensecrets.org: [19]
“I released the most extensive financial review of anybody in the history of politics,” Trump said. “It’s either 100 or maybe more pages of names of companies, locations of companies, etc., etc., and it's a very impressive list, and everybody says that. … You don't learn much in a tax return.”
The New York Times reports that while Trump has claimed his net worth is more than $10 billion, that figure cannot be verified with the disclosure form provided because the largest range for a single asset’s worth is “over $50 million.” [23]
E&E News outlined Donald Trump's landing teams. They report that these so-called landing teams are responsible for “will be responsible for interviewing top government officials and helping to set the new administration's policy agenda.” Here is a snapshot of what the team looked like on December 16, 2016: [182]
Commodity Futures and Trading Commission
Description
Sharon Brown-Hruska
director of NERA Economic Consulting's securities and finance practice.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
CJ Jordan
president and CEO of Jordan Management Group LLC.
Paul Atkins
CEO at Patomak Global Partners LLC and former commissioner of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Department of Agriculture
Brian Klippenstein
executive director, Protect the Harvest.
Joel Leftwich
staff director on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee and former PepsiCo lobbyist.
Department of Commerce
A. Mark Neuman
counselor for international trade and global strategies at L Brands Inc.
David Bohigian
managing director of Pluribus Ventures, former Commerce assistant secretary.
George Sifakis
founder and CEO of Ideagen.
Tom Leppert
former CEO of Kaplan, Inc.
William Gaynor
president and CEO at Rock Creek Advisors LLC.
Department of Defense
Bert Mizusawa
major general in the U.S. Army Reserve.
Chris Hassler
president and CEO at Syndetics, Inc.
Craig Duehring
former assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and reserve affairs.
Dakota Wood
senior research fellow for defense programs at the Heritage Foundation.
David McCracken
fellow at Oak Ridge Strategies Group Inc.
David Trachtenberg
owner of Shortwaver Consulting, LLC.
Earl Matthews
U.S. Army.
Justin Johnson
senior policy analyst for defense budgeting policy at the Heritage Foundation.
Keith Kellogg
vice president of strategic initiatives at Cubic Corporation.
Kendell Pease
kendell LLC.
Kenneth Braithwaite
senior vice president and executive officer, VHA Mid-Atlantic at Vizient, Inc.
Mark Albrecht
chairman of the board of U.S. Space LLC.
Michael Duffey
executive director of Republican Party of Wisconsin.
Republican National Committee chairman and incoming White House chief of staff.
Rick Dearborn
chief of staff to Trump's attorney general nominee, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).
Sean Cairncross
Republican National Committee chief operating officer.
Transition Team (2016)
The Washington Post notes that “Although Trump has portrayed himself as the ultimate outsider, in putting together a transition team the New York real estate mogul has chosen veteran Washington insiders, many of them lobbyists for fossil fuel companies and skeptics about climate science.” [24]
ClimateDenierRoundup notes that, “looking at all the lobbyists and beltway insiders, one would be forgiven for assuming his last campaign catchphrase was #StaffTheSwamp.” The chart notes a Homeland Security transition led by Cindy Hayden of tobacco giant Altria. Leading labor is Steve Hart, chairman of Williams & Jensen, who represents businesses like Coca-Cola, General Electric, HSBC, and VISA. The agricultural sector is being managed by Michael Torrey, who represents the American Beverage Association. [25]
Energy and environment is manned by Michael McKenna, who works for MWR Strategies, which represents the chemical giant Dow, the Kochs, and coal giant Southern Company. Fracking magnate Harold Hamm is in the lead for Secretary of Energy. For Interior, if Trump doesn’t give the position to Trump Jr., then it may go to Forrest Lucas, co-founder of Lucas Oil.
Note that the transition is a fluid process, and many names on this list will be replaced by others. For example, Mike Rogers withdrew from the national security lead. The New York Times reported that lobbyist Matthew Freedom, also on the national security team, as also fired. While the New York Times reported that Trump's ”transition was in disarray,” Trump maintained on Twitter that it was going “so smoothly.” [27], [28]
Executive Committee
Trump released a statement on Friday, November 11, 2016 that outlined who would join his transition team's executive committee. Politico reports that Trump replaced New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie with Vice President-elect Mike Pence to chair the effort. They report that Christie's “viability as part of the team was thrown into question when two of his closest allies were convicted on charges of fraud and conspiracy related to the Bridgegate scandal.” Trump's new executive committee was structured as follows: [138], [151]
Media Transparency notes that Pence is a climate science denier. When asked whether he believed climate change was man-made, Pence responded: “I don't know that that is a resolved issue in science today.” Pence added: “Just a few years ago, we were talking about global warming. We haven't seen a lot of warming lately. I remember back in the ‘70s we were talking about the coming ice age.” [39]
Stephen K. Bannon, emerging as Donald Trump's chief strategist, is the executive chairman of Breitbart News, which Bloomberg describes as the lineal descendant of the Drudge Report, and a “haven for people who think Fox News is too polite and restrained.” Breitbart faced controversy earlier during 2016 election season, nicknamed “Trumpbart” by detractors. The Daily Beast writes “it is widely seen as a credulous purveyor of [Donald] Trump's angry populist, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim message, and as an enthusiastic booster of the reality show billionaire's candidacy.” [152], [153]
ClimateWire suggests that Bannon will be influential in shaping Trump's views on climate change, coming from a news network that describes environmentalists as “greentards” and “totally fu**ing wrong on climate change.” Climate change denier and journalist James Delingpole wrote that the Breitbart network has already created a clear outline of how Bannon plans to advice Trump on climate change. [155], [156]
“One of his pet peeves is the great climate-change con,” Delingpole wrote of Bannon. “It's partly why he recruited a notorious skeptic like myself.”
Trump picked Reinhold Richard (Reince) Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), as his White House chief of staff. The New York Timesreported that Priebus's appointment, alongside that of Bannon, created “rival centers of power in the Trump White House.” While the Koch Brothers have refused to back Trump in the election, they are notably a considerable funder of the RNC. [157], [158]
Ron Nichol, former US naval officer, has worked as senior advisor to The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) since January of 2016. Prior to his work at BCG, he worked for Babcock and Wilcox. He will oversee the following six groups, each of which also has its own team lead. [29]
Affiliations
Boston Consulting Group - Senior Advisor, previous senior partner and managing director.
Babcock & Wilcox — Prior position.
Defense
Keith Kellogg - Defense
Keith Kellogg is a retired Army lieutenant general who previously endorsed Trump. Since retiring from the military in 2003, Kellogg has worked for a number of defense and homeland security contractors including GTSI, Oracle Corp., Coalition of Provisional Authority, and others. [28]
CACI International Inc. — Executive Vice President (January 2005 - July 2009). [31]
Cubic Corp.— Senior Vice President for Ground Combat Programs (2009). [31], [32]
Abraxis— Former President (2014). Abraxis is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cubic Corp. [31]
Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad— Chief Operations Officer (Nov. 2003 - March 2004) [31]
Oracle Corp. — Senior Vice President of Homeland Security Solutions (January 2005 - ). [33]
U.S. Army — Lieutenant General. Served 1971 to July 2003. [31]
Mira Ricardel - Defense
Mira Ricardel is the former acting assistant defense secretary during the George W. Bush administration. Until recently she served as the vice president of business development for Boeing Strategic Missile & Defense Systems. Ricardel is also a consultant for Federal Budget IQ, a government research firm. [34], [26]
Affiliations
Boeing Strategic Missile & Defense Systems — Former vice president of Business Development. [35]
Freedom House — Former vice president of Programs. [35]
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency — Former deputy director of Congressional Affairs. [35]
Council on Foreign Relations — Former Member. [35]
Michael Meese, working under Kellogg on Veterans Affairs, is a retired US Army brigadier general who currently teaches at Georgetown University. He also serves as chief operating officer of the American Armed Forces Mutual Aid Association. Meese is son of former Attorney General Edwin MEese, another Transition team member. [28]
Affiliations
American Armed Forces Mutual Aid Association (AAFMAA) — Chief Operating Officer (2013 - ) [36]
National Security
Mike Pence - Replaced Mike Rogers to lead National Security
Mike Pence, Vice President-elect, was a Republican member of the US House of Representatives from Indiana's 2nd District and 6th District between 2001 and 2013. Pence is a devout Evangelical Christian, an early supporter of the Tea Party, and a social conservative. The Washington Post reported that Pence became a household name after signing a religous freedom bill into law in 2016 which Pence said would protect Indiana business owners who did not want to participate in same-sex marriages, citing their religious beliefs. Several of Pence's top aids have ties with the Koch network. [37]
Pence signed what some described as “the most extreme abortion bill yet”—Bill HB 1347—which would ban women from abortions of fetuses diagnosed with physical or mental disability, including Down syndrome. [38]
Media Transparency notes that Pence is a climate science denier. When asked whether he believed climate change was man-made, Pence responded: “I don't know that that is a resolved issue in science today.” Pence added: “Just a few years ago, we were talking about global warming. We haven't seen a lot of warming lately. I remember back in the ‘70s we were talking about the coming ice age.” [39]
Former Rep. Mike Rogers was originally slated to lead the National Security transition team. However, in a statement released Tuesday, he said he was “pleased to hand off our work” to a new team led by Mike Pence. [44]
Jim Carafano - State
James Carafano is Vice President for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, and the E. W. Richardson Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative group that has received over $500,000 from ExxonMobil and is a former member of the Cooler Heads Coalition which fervently denies man-made climate change. [45], [46]
“The Obama White House has used the Office of Science and Technology principally to support its pet political causes — like advocacy for global climate change research that matches the president’s views on the topic and can be puffed to justify expanding federal regulations in virtually every aspect of American life,” Carafano wrote at the Heritage Foundation.
Affiliations
The Heritage Foundation— Vice President for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, and the E. W. Richardson Fellow [45]
Ron Burgess is a former Army Lt. General and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. President Obama appointed Burgess as head of the DIA in 2009, and he served in that position until 2012. Rogers is also former chair of the House Intelligence oversight committee. The Independent reports that pressure mounted on Trump to create his national security team after James Clapper's resignation. [49]
House Intelligence oversight committee — Former Chairman. [49]
Matthew Freedman - NSC (Fired, replaced by Pence)
Matthew Freedman is the chief executive at Global Impact. He was removed from his post overseeing the National Security Counsil after questions emerged about his lobbying times, reports The New York Times. Matthew Freedom briefly worked for the National Security Council and the Agency for International Development, later working as a security consultant. [51]
Kevin O'Connor is a former U.S. attorney and top Justice Departemnt officer. He was one of a number on Trump's transition team who were dismissed with little explanation, although news sources conjecture that it is part of a “apparent purge of anyone tied to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.” [54]
Economic Issues
Bill Walton / David Malpass - Economic Issues
Bill Walton is chairman of Rappahannock Ventures, a private equity firm, and the film production company Rush River Entertainment. He is a senior fellow for the Discovery Institute's Center on Wealth, Poverty and Morality and is the chairman of the board and CEO of Allied Capital Corp. [55]
David Malpass is founder and president of the consulting and economics research firm Encima Global. He previously worked at Bear Stearns as chief economist, as controller at Consolidated Supply Co. and maintained a number of appointments in the Reagan and Bush administrations. Malpass ran in the 2010 Republican primary for U.S. Senate in New York. [57]
“Yes, of course, and that's why I'm working on the campaign…. I worked in both the Reagan and Bush administrations. They were effective, they tried to be effective. But overwhelms you when you're there is the number of decisions the federal government is making. [It's] this giant entity that's constantly affecting people's lives. And I think they haven't been making good decisions in the current administration and we need a better one. “
National Committee on U.S.-China Relations — Past Director. [57]
Ray Washburn - Commerce
Ray Washburn is a Dallas-based investor, and one of the key people helping to raise money for Trump's campaign. He is the former chairman of Republican National Committee, stepping down to lead New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's finance team. [59], [60], [61]
Affiliations
Charter Holdings— President and Chief Executive Officer (1990 - ) [62]
Republican National Committee Inc. — Former National Finance Chairman [62]
Southern Methodist University— Adjunct Professor, Director at Southern Methodist University-21st Century Council [62]
Dan DiMicco - USTR
Dan DiMicco is a board member of Duke Energy and the former President and CEO of Nucor. He continues to represent Nucor on the US Council on Competitiveness and the Coalition for a Prosperous America(CPA). He has also served on the board of the National Association of Manufacturers and on the Executive Committee of the World Steel Association. He has been described as “a leading voice for U.S. manufacturing and the nation's steel industry.” [63]
In 2012, DiMicco sent a letter to a concerned shareholder defending Nucor's support of the Heartland Institute, including many common talking points used in the Heartland Institute's continued denial of climate change. The Heartland Institute also historically defended Tobacco, claiming that smoking risks were “junk science.”
ThinkProgress reported that DiMicco described $502,000 in contributions by Nucor Corporation as “entirely appropriate,” according to the letter: [64]
Nucor — Chairman Emeritus. Former President and CEO. [63]
National Association of Manufacturers (NAS) — Former Board Member. [63]
World Steel Association — Former Board Member. [63]
Paul Atkins - Indepent Financial Agencies
Image by Toppersmith (Own work) [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons
Paul Atkins is the CEO of the financial advisory firm Patomak Global Partners, a Washington-based financial consulting firm. Atkins was an SEC Commissioner from 2002 to 2008. [66]
US Securities & Exchange Commission — Commissioner (July 2002 - May 2008). [66]
Christine Toretti - SBA
Christine Toretti is the former Chairman and CEO of the now-defunct S. W. Jack Drilling Co. She serves as Vice Chairman of S&T Bancorp and is a former director of the Pittsburgh Federal Reserve Bank. In September 2016, Toretti announced the “Pennsylvania Women for Trump Statewide Leadership Team.” [67], [68]
Affiliations
Republican Party of Pennsylvania — National Committeewoman.
S.W. Jack Drilling Company (Now Defunct) — Former Chairwoman.
Palladio, LLC— Chairwoman and CEO.
S&T Bancorp— Director.
Pittsburgh Federal Bank Reserve — Former Director.
Jeffrey Eisenach is the former leader of the now-defunct Progress and Freedom Foundation, and has argued for the FCC to take a hands-off aproach to digital issues. Eisenach is a Visiting Scholar and Director, Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a group that has received over $3 million from ExxonMobil and a range of other high-profile conservative funding groups. Eisenach is senior president at NERA Economic Consulting, and an adjunct professor at the George Mason University School of law. [69]
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) — Visiting Scholar and Director, Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy. Research Associate (1979-1981). [69]
University of Virginia — Instructor (1983-1984). [69]
Office of Management and Budget/Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief — Special Assistant to James C. Miller III (1981). [69]
Michael Korbey - Social Security Administration
Michael Korbey was a senior advisor to the Social Security Administration under President George W. Bush. Prior to that, he worked for the lobbyist group United Seniors Association. Korbey has spent much of his career advocating for cutting and privatizing Social Security. “It's a failed system, broken and bankrupt,” Korbey said when he was a lobbyist in the mid-1990s. [71]
Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow for human rights and constitutional governance at the Family Research Council, a pro-life group engaged in lobbying and historically opposed to health care reform. Blackwell is a former mayor of Cincinnati, and former Ohio secretary of state and treasurer. [28], [74], [75]
“Donald Trump is an existential threat to conservatism. He is arguably one of the most divisive figures in modern political history and his candidacy represents not only a threat to the Republican Party, Donald Trump is dragging the nation into the political gutter. It's time for conservative voters to open their eyes and understand the nation deserves better than this political huckster.” [76]
Michael McKenna is the president of MWR Strategies. DeSmog reports that McKenna's lobbying career started with an ethics scandal. Before resigning from the administration of Virginia's then-Governor George Allen in 1997, McKenna was implicated in the authorship and distribution of what the Associated Press called a“dirty tricks” memo written in response to a report published by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC), which had critiqued the Department of Environmental Quality for which McKenna had then served as policy director and spokesman. [77], [78]
McKenna left his post on Trump's Energy Department transition team in November, 2016. “Although I have reluctantly decided that I cannot continue on the transition in an official capacity, I am excited about continuing to work to make America great again,” McKenna said in a November 18 statement. [161]
In December, 2016 Thomas Pyle was chosen to head Donald Trump's energy transition team after Mike McKenna stepped down. Pyle's history of lobbying for the oil and gas industry seems to run counter to the “drain the swamp” strategy declared by Trump. Pyle also has a history of opposing renewable energy, describing subsidies for renewables as “perpetuating a cycle of dependency where politicians feed money to industries that then instruct their lobbyists to support those same politicians.” [165]
Myron Ebell is the chair of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a group of organizations “that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy rationing policies.” Ebell has celebrated his poor track record with environmental groups, as evidenced in a biography (PDF) submitted before his testimony in Congress that noted he and three of his CEI colleagues were featured in “A Field Guide to Climate Criminals” distributed at the UN climate meeting in Montreal in December 2005. Ebell was also listed as one of the six top “Misleaders” by Rolling Stone magazine. [83]
Steve Hart is the the chairman of Williams & Jensen, a Washington, D.C.-based “government affairs firm” that lobbies for big businesses with a client list including Visa, the American Council of Life Insurers, Anthem, Cheniere Energy, Coca-Cola, General Electric, HSBC, Pfixer, PhRMA and United Airlines. Hart previously worked at the Labor Department in the Pension Welfare Benefits Program and on the Office of Management and Budget's ERISA Reorganization Task Force under Ronald Reagan. [87]
Andrew Bremberg previously served as policy director for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's presidential campaign. Prior to that, he worked at the federal healthcare agency under President George W. Bush administration. Bremberg is currently Policy Advisor and Counsel on Nominations for U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. [88]
Shirley Yharra - DOT
Shirley Yharra is a former Virginia secretary of transportation, and worked in federal transportion during the Reagan Administration. She is a former senior transportation policy analyst at the conservative Reason Foundation. Ybarra also served as senior policy advisor and special assistant for policy for U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole from 1983 to 1987. [89], [90]
Williamson (Bill) Evers (Education Lead) is a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a member of their K-12 Education Task Force. He was the US assistant secretary of education for policy from 2007 to 2009. Evers served in Iraq as a senior adviser for education to Administrator L. Paul Bremer of the Coalition Provisional Authority. [91], [92]
James F. Manning (Education Deputy) waschief of staff to Deputy Education Bill Hansen during the George W. Bush administration. Manning was also an official at the Office of Federal Student Aid during the first several years of the Obama administration. [93]
David Bernhardt - Interior
David Bernhardt represents large energy companies at the nation's second-largest lobbying firm, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck. He was the Interior Department's solicitor, deputy solicitor, deputy chief of staff, counselor to the secretary of the Interior and director of the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs under George W. Bush. [94], [95]
Michael Torrey runs his own lobbying firm, specializing in “food, agriculture, risk management and financial services.” He is a former advisor to Senate Majority Leader Bobe Dole, and to Senators Nancy Landon Kassebaum and Sheila Frahm, deputy chief of staff at USDA. Torrey has lobbied for a number of big businesses including the American Beverage Association, Dean Foods, and the Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau. [96], [97]
Affiliations
Michael Torrey Associates — Principal and Founder. [96]
Commodity Future Trading Commission — Former Special Assistant. [96]
Management/Budget
Ed Meese & Kay Coles James — Management/Budget
Ed Meese, former Attorney General, was a long-time aide to Ronald Reagan. Meese was a critic of Donald Trump's candidacy for presidency, Politico reports. In January, Meese had written that Trump's “broadsides” against fellow GOP candidates had served “to divide and discourage potential Republican-party supporters.” Meese is associated with a range of public policy councils and think tanks including the Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution, and the Federalist Soceity. [98], [99]
Affilations
The Heritage Foundation— Chairman of Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies from its founding in 2001 until what he calls his “semi-retirement” on Feb. 1, 2013. The Heritage Foundation's legal center now bears Meese's name. [100]
Paul Winfreewas formerly listed as director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, and the conservative think tank's Richard F. Aster fellow. He was previously a senior policy analyst in Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis. [103]
Linda Springeris the eighth Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management. Prior to her career in public service, Springer was Senior Vice President and Controller at Provident Mutual and Vice President and Product Manager at Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company. [104]
Kay Coles James - OPM
Kay Coles James is a former director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). She was President Bush's principal advisor in matters of personnel administration. Prior to her appointment under George W. Bush, she served under Virginia Secretary of Health and Human Resources under then-Governor George Allen. She is the President and Founder of the Gloucester Institute. [105], [106]
She is the former senior vice president of the Family Research Council, a Christian pro-life group and lobbying organization. Fellow transition team member Ken Blackwell also has ties to the Family Research Council. [107]
Agency Transform & Innovation
Beth Kaufman/Jonathan Beck
Other Team Members
Ado Machida — Executive Actions, Regulations, and Immigration Transition Team.
Ado Machida joined the Executive Actions, Regulations, and Immigration Transition Team. Machida previously served as deputy assistant to the vice president and Director of the Office of Domestic Policy under Vice President Dick Cheney from 2002-2003. Prior to working under Bush, Machida was a lobbyist for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld; Kaizen Strategy Group; and BAE Systems, where he lobbied for major companies such as American Airlines, Time Warner, Walgreens, AT&T, Honeywell, Lucent Technologies, and several Native American tribes, reports Politico. [108]
Affiliations
International Stability Operations Association ISOA— President (2013 - present). [109]
The Kaizen Strategy Group, LLC— Former President (2012 - 2013). [109]
BAE Systems— Vice President, Government Relations (2009 - 2011). [109]
The Kaizen Strategy Group, LLC— President and Managing Principal (2007 - 2009). [109]
David Schnare is also on Trump's EPA transition team, reports The Guardian. Schnare is general counsel to the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (formerly the American Tradition Institute), a group which regularly opposes efforts to combat climate change. Schnare recently launched a number of Freedom of Information Act Requests with state attorneys general who had been investigating ExxonMobil's knowledge of climate change. [139], [140]
Steven Groves — Department of State 'Landing Team'
On November 21, 2016, news broke that Steven Groves would lead Trump's Department of State “landing team.” Groves is the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. Groves previously worked as senior counsel to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and as an associate at Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, specializing in commercial litigation. [146], [147]
In an article Groves co-wrote at The Daily Signaljust days before the announcement he was joining the Trump team, he outlined steps that the new administration should take to “unwind” the Paris climate agreement including “ Withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,” “Dismantle domestic regulations that are all economic pain, no climate benefit,” and “Prohibit taxpayer funding” to green projects. [148]
“Part gatekeeper, part brain trust and part boots on the ground, Heritage is both a major presence on the transition team itself and a crucial conduit between Trump’s orbit and the once-skeptical conservative leaders who ultimately helped get him elected,” Politco's Katie Glueck writes. [159]
Three sources with conservative groups said that Heritage employees were tracking resumes, looking to staff Trump's administration with conservative appointees. One source described the effort as a “shadow transition team” and “an effort to have the right kind of people in there.” [159]
The transition team is being assisted from Heritage officials including: [159]
A source reported that Rebekah Mercer had also been working with Heritage to recruit appointees for positions at the undersecretary level and below. [159]
Kathleen Hartnett-White is the director of the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a group funded by ExxonMobil, Koch network, and RJ Reynolds. Hartnett-White directors the TPPF's “Fueling Freedom” project which seeks to “Explain the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels” while “building a multi-state coalition to push back against the EPA’s unconstitutional efforts to take over the electric power sector by regulating CO2 via the Clean Power Plan” as well as “End the regulation of CO2 as a pollutant.” [112], [113], [114]
Prior to her work at the TPPF, Hartnett-White worked as Chairman and Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Prior to 2001, she served as then-Governor George W. Bush's appointee to the Texas Water Development Board. She is also member of the Advisory Committee for the CO2 Coalition, formerly known as the George C. Marshall Institute. The CO2 Coalition's tag line is “Carbon dioxide, a nutrient vital for life,” and seeks to highlight “well-established uncertainties, the limitations of climate models, and the consequences of mandated reductions in CO2 emissions.” [115]
Time magazine — Former Member, Economic Board of Directors. [125]
Other Economic Advisory Team Members Include:
Tom Barrack
Andy Beal
Stephen M. Calk
Dan DiMicco
Steve Feinberg
Dan Kowalski
Howard M. Lorber
David Malpass
Steven Mnuchin
Peter Navarro
John Paulson
Steven Roth
Ethics lawyers who had worked for President George W. Bush, presidential candidates Bob Dole, John Kerry, John McCain and Mitt Romney, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg toldCNNMoneythat Trump would have more potential conflicts of interest due to his businesses than any other former president. [136]
“This is certainly going to present an unprecedented ethical dilemma if Trump wins,” said Kenneth Gross, a partner at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, who provided legal assistance to several presidential candidates during their campaigns. “He can't just get amnesia. He's stuck with the knowledge of what he owns.”
In November 2016, Congresswoman Katherine Clark introduced legislation (H.R. 6340) that would require U.S. Presidents to resolve any conflicts of interest with regard to financial interests. While current law prohibits federal office holders from engaging in government business when they could gain a profit, the President and Vice President are excempt from that statute. [137]
Dug Begley. “Trump's highway improvement plans come with a price of maybe more Texas toll roads,” Houston Chronicle, November 10, 2016. Archived November 18, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/CJ9bX
According to his profile at AEA. Relat has worked for several non-profit organizations focusing on promoting free market public policy, particularly energy and regulatory reform. [1]
Relat is currently writing for Fueling U.S. Forward, a Koch-funded front group crafted by veteran Washington communications specialists. The organization — led by long-time fossil fuel executive and lobbyist Charlie Drevna— seeks to present oil and gas as savior fuels without any mention of the well-known impacts of fossil fuel pollution on our air, water, health and climate. [2]
“The President's carbon rule, his climate legacy, is fundamentally seeking to transfer wealth from the middle states who rely on affordable energy and have made good energy policy priority and transfer wealth to pay for the bad decisions by states like California and the northeast. […] That's fundamentally what this is–a wealth transfer for states that he likes from states that he does not. ” [2:47:39]
Key Quotes
April 15, 2016
“EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy declared that there was 'not one single bit of evidence that [the EPA has] destroyed an industry or significantly impacted jobs other than in a positive way.'
This statement is clearly contradicted by reality and credible studies. For example, the economic consulting firm NERA found that the cost of EPA’s so-called 'Clean Power Plan' could total nearly $300 billion. Nearly $300 billion in compliance costs will significantly impact jobs.” [5]
March 31, 2016
“First, wind and solar are intermittent sources of energy, which means they cannot be relied on to provide sufficient electricity at a given point when the grid needs it. Conversely, coal and natural gas are baseload sources of power, precisely because they can be scaled up or down at any given time to meet energy needs. This is a critical difference between renewables and fossil fuels that permanently makes the former unable to actually replace the latter.
The cherry-picking method used to manufacture these projections has been written about extensively.” [6]
July 8, 2015
“The administration equating our commentary on the relevance of the [mercury rule] to [the carbon rule] as “apples to oranges” presents a straw man that distracts from the lesson states should take away from [the mercury rule] — if you start implementing the rule before full legal resolution, there's no going back. Even worse, the EPA is counting on this to happen.” [7]
Key Deeds
January 21, 2017
FUSF awarded three African-American students at Northwest Halifax High School $1,500 in scholarships for an electrical lineman training program. Hubbel Relat, FUSF' said Fueling U.S. Forward was making an effort to reach minority communities, reported Dailytarheel.com. [10]
“Despite how important this industry is to all of our lives and our economy, the African-American communities and a lot of rural communities in general are underrepresented and left out of this industry,” Relat said. “A lot of the time they are simply not made aware of the job opportunities in the industry.” [10]
June 16, 2016
Hubbel Relat appeared on a panel titled Energy: Changing the Narrative, “presumably meant to change the narrative of climate change to one of energy independence” reported The Nation. [9]
Other panelists included Nancy Pfotenhauer, the president of MediaSpeak Strategies and former director of Koch Industries’ Washington Office, and Karen Steward, Director of Research at Freedom Partners. [9]
March 3, 2016
Hubbel Relat, representing the American Energy Alliance, spoke at CPAC 2016. He spoke about President Obama's carbon plan, contending it was essentially wealth transfer: [4]
“The President's carbon rule, his climate legacy, is fundamentally seeking to transfer wealth from the middle states who rely on affordable energy and have made good energy policy priority and transfer wealth to pay for the bad decisions by states like California and the northeast. […] That's fundamentally what this is–a wealth transfer for states that he likes from states that he does not. ” [2:47:39]
DC London — According to his profile at the Republican National Lawyer's Association, Relat has an email at dc-london.com (hubbel@dc-london.com). However, he is not listed on the DC London website. [8]
Rudolph (Rudy) Giuliani served as the Mayor of New York City for two terms, from 1994 through 2001, and was a 2008 Republican presidential candidate. He is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Giuliani Partners LLC, which he founded in January, 2002. He was appointed the Associate Attorney General under President Reagan in 1981. [2], [3]
When Giuliani launched his presidential bid in 2007, Time magazine dubbed him an “honorary Texas oil lawyer.” By October of that year, he had raised more than half a million dollars from the oil and gas industry, more than the next two top recipients combined. Giuliani began work at Bracewell & Patterson—later renamed Bracewell & Giuliani—in 2005. During his presidential bid, over $14,000 of his total campaign dollars came from the oil refiner Valero Energy, one of Bracewell & Giuliani’s clients. Giuliani left Bracewell & Giuliani in January, 2016, and the firm subsequently rebranded itself as Bracewell. [4],[5], [6]
Giuliani appeared to reflect his client’s interests on the campaign trail and beyond. Over 2007 and 2008, Giuliani indicated he would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, came out against fuel economy mandates for cars, said the United States would be “better off if we could rely somewhat more on our coal reserves” in order to achieve energy independence, and supported coal-to-fuel synthesis, believing it could be “a very valuable contributor” to said independence. [7], [8],[9]
Giuliani Declined Positions in Trump Administration
“Giuliani’s deep financial ties to the oil and gas industry are a major red flag; nominating him as Secretary of State would be another deeply disturbing move by President-elect Trump,” says League of Conservation Voters Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Tiernan Sittenfield. [13]
“Trump's consideration of Rudy Giuliani for secretary of state, with all of his ties to the fossil fuel industry, is par for the disastrous course the President-elect is setting,” says Dani Heffernan, US Communication Coordinator at 350.org. “Giuliani isn't an outright climate denier, but his deep loyalties to the fossil fuel industry pose a threat to international action against climate change and, ultimately, a livable future.” [13]
Politico reports that Giulani confirmed president-elect Trump had offered him two “Cabinet-level positions” in government, and that he had turned down the positions because he “didn't want to do it.” [14]
While he declined to name the positions, he did say that they were “very high” and did not include the top job at state. Giulani dismissed suggestions that his decisions had been based on inadequate loyalty by Trump: “As far as I'm concerned, he fulfilled whatever loyalty that entails,” Giuliani said, referencing the two other job offers he said he received. “I mean, it was my own decision not to do it, largely because of my personal life.” [14]
Fossil Fuel Ties & Lobbying
When Rudy Giuliani joined Bracewell & Patterson in 2005, expanding the firm’s New York office, it already had the reputation of being the firm of choice for major energy companies. In 2007, the New York Times called Bracwell & Patterson “perhaps the nation’s most aggressive lobbyist for coal-fired power plants, heavy emitters of air pollutants and carbon dioxide,” arguing it was “central to rolling back environmental regulations in the Bush years,” such as provisions of the Clean Air Act. [15], [16], [17], [5]
Legal Clients
Some of the firm's largest legal clients have included Shell Oil, and Chevron/Texaco. Bracewell & Giuliani helped Shell acquire 618,000 acres of the Permian Basin in 2012 from the Chesapeake Energy Corporation—itself a major client, and one that gave the firm hundreds of thousands of dollars for lobbying work from 2011-2015. [18], [19], [20], [21]
Other notable fossil fuel clients included Saudi Arabia’s oil ministry (despite Giuliani’s rejection of a $10 million donation from a Saudi prince after the September 11 attacks), Citgo (Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, which spent more than $5 million since 2014 lobbying against U.S. sanctions), and Pacific Gas & Electric, California’s largest utility, which was found guilty of violating safety regulations prior to a pipeline explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes. Bracewell represented the company in the case. [26], [27], [28], [29]
Lobbying Clients
According to public lobbying disclosures, Giuliani's firms have a long history with the energy industry with clients like Arch Coal and Chesapeake Energy. Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program said that “Bracewell & Giuliani was probably the most premier energy lobbying firm in the 2000s.” [13], [5]
Bracewell & Giuliani also lobbied for 11 years for Southern Company, a company vehemently opposed to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan and once ranked “the United States’ most irresponsible utility.” The firm also lobbied for gas and coal power plant operator Dynegy, frequently criticized for it's air-polluting power plants, for seven years. GenOn Energy, which has racked up thousands of violations of federal and state water laws over the years, retained the firm as lobbyists for the same amount of time. [30],[31], [32], [33]
There is significant overlap between the firm and the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a coalition of energy companies which opposesenvironmental legislation. The group’s director, Scott Segal, is a partner at Bracewell & Giuliani. [34]
Jeff Holmstead, who in 2010 was referred to by the ERCC as its counsel, is also a partner at the firm (though as this transcript of his Senate testimony shows, he hasn’t always disclosed this connection). [35], [36],[37]
While the ERCC has not revealed its full member list, some of its members are known to be Duke Energy, Salt River Project, and Southern Company, though it has also done work for mining company Arch Coal. These all were or still are Bracewell & Giuliani clients. At the same time, the ERCC has not only been one of Bracewell & Giuliani’s oldest clients, starting with the firm in 2001, but one of its most lucrative, too, paying out more than $1 million a year to the firm since 2008, dwarfing every other client listed. [38]
The firm has a close relationship to oil and gas producer El Paso Corporation, which is owned by Kinder Morgan. Greenbert Traurig lobbied for two of the company’s subsidiaries, El Paso Electric and El Paso Pipeline Group, from 2005 through 2013. [40]
It isn't clear what Giulini’s own personal involvement with many of these companies was. Giuliani himself has never registered as a lobbyist, and he’s not listed as an attorney in legal cases involving the companies. In 2006, Newsday reported that Giuliani personally sat down with Shell executives, part of his role of “solidifying existing relationships” with the firm. It’s also worth noting that when working for his private consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, the former mayor regularly did lobbying work for his clients without ever registering himself as such, possibly because he didn’t technically meet the threshold of salaried time spent communicating with officials. [45], [46]
Tyson Slocum says whether or not Giuliani was directly involved with some of these companies is beside the point:
“It would be one thing if you had some minor role,” he says. “It’s another when one of the world’s largest lobbying groups renames itself after you.” [13]
“I don't like taxes. I don't know how to make that any clearer. I don't like taxes. I generally think taxes are, given the level of taxation we have, and a lot of our states and in the country, inventing new ones is a very big mistake. Find other ways to do it.
If you want to deal with global warming, the way to deal with global warming is to develop these alternative technologies. Really get serious about energy independence, which we should probably have been serious about 30 years ago. We wouldn't be in this situation where we have to send money to our enemies.”
“Get serous about why we haven't licensed a new nuclear power plant in 30 years. Because people are afraid of nuclear power. […] Nobody's died from nuclear power.” […]
“I look at wind and solar from the point of view of, can we store that energy? Right now it's inconsistent energy. When the wind is blowing, you get energy. When it isn't, you don't. Is there a way to develop a technology that you can store it? Can you clean coal? Carbon sequestration: it can be done. Can we expand it?
The other benefit of looking at it this way, which I consider a pro-growth way, is we move ourselves towards energy independence then we also create an industry. A new industry in America. And with the growth of China and the growth of India, if we're at the head of that industry we''re going to make a lot of money in China and we're going to make a lot of money in india. We won't just be buying things from them; they'll be buying things from us.”
In the same interview, Giuliani discusses the Kyoto Protocol and global warming:
“It would move [jobs] to China and India and it would have no impact on global warming. Whatever your scientific conclusion about global warming, whether it's man-made, or it isn't or whatever, the reality is that if you don't have restrictions on China and you don't have restrictions on India, our contribution ultimately is going to be minor. We could put all these restrictions on ourselves and have just as much arguable global warming if China, India—some of these other countries that are going to be contributing a lot more to this don't become part of some sort of system […]”
October, 2007
Grist reports that while Giulani said “I do believe there’s global warming,” on the campaign trail, in a later speech on energy in the summer in Waterloo, Iowa, he had hardly a word about the environment. Instead, he focused on tapping domestic sources of energy, including coal, which is considered a major contributor to global warming. [48]
Key Quotes
December 13, 2016
Speaking of Exxonmobil CEO Rex Tillerson's appointment as secretary of state: [49]
“I'm okay with the choice. I think Donald Trump has selected somebody who knows the world and can advise him on the world.”
“”It's time to make America safe again. It's time to make America one again […] What I did for New York, Donald Trump will do for America!”
“Donald Trump has said the first step in defeating our enemies is to identify them properly and see the connections between them,” Giuliani said. “To defeat Islamic extremist terrorism we must put them on defense. If they are at war against us ― which they have declared ― we must commit ourselves to unconditional victory against them.”
“This includes undoing one of the worst deals America ever made ― Obama's Nuclear Agreement with Iran that will eventually let them become a nuclear power and put billions of dollars back into a country that the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism.”
September, 2015
Speaking at the annual Shale Insight conference, Rudy Giulani argued the natural gas industry was “not being supported by the national government in the way that it should be.” He told the audience of industry members that many people were “irrationally afraid” of fracking, and the industry needed to launch “a national effort to explain how relatively safe this process was.” [54]
February, 2015
“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president [Barack Obama] loves America […] He doesn’t love you. And he doesn't love me. He wasn't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up, through love of this country.” [51]
In response to criticism for the above statement, Giuliani said “Some people thought it was racist—I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother… This isn't racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism.” [52]
September, 2014
In 2014, he called on President Obama to fast-track applications to export natural gas as part of a foreign policy strategy: [53]
“You know how President Obama is looking at non-military options to solve things such as the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia? It would have been within our abilities to export a massive amount of natural gas […] which would then have an impact on the world price of natural gas and would deprive Putin of the only strength he has left in his economy.”
August, 2007
“I was once in the coal business for a short period of time. I ran a company that had coal mines in Hazard, Ky., so we were able to share stories about the coal industry and some of the struggles it faces and the need for clean coal and carbon sequestration […]”
“[The U.S. would be] “better off if we could rely somewhat more on our coal reserves which are greater (in number) than the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. “There’s a real opportunity here to expand our economy and take advantage of the global economy by selling energy independence to others. And as a matter of national security to put ourselves in a position where we don’t have to rely so much on oil from other parts of the world.”
“One of my 12 commitments to the American people is to make our country energy independent and coal plays a big role in that.” [9]
June, 2007
“Energy independence: if we can make that a major focus of American policy for the next 5-10 years, is a great industry for us to sell to China and India. They need energy independence. We should be able to figure out how to produce it and then we can sell it to them.” [55]
“My response is he’s a genius,” Giuliani began. “Absolute genius. I mean, the man in “The Art of the Deal” this is described. First of all, we’re talking about 26 years ago, perfectly legal. We should get that straight immediately. This is a perfectly legal application of the tax code. And he would’ve been fool not to take advantage of it. Not only that, he would’ve probably breached his fiduciary duty to his investors, to his business. You have an obligation when you run a business to maximize the profits. And if there is a tax law that says I can deduct this, you deduct it. If you fail to deduct it, people can sue you. Your investors can sue you.”
November 4, 2016
According to the Huffington Post, Rudy Giulani knew that the FBI planned to review emails tied to Hillary Clinton before the public announcement was released about the investigation, confirming that the agency had leaked information to Donald Trump's presidential campaign. [57]
Giulani had already dropped several hints that he knew in advance that the FBI planned to look at the emails and had touted his connection to the FBI, mentioning that “outraged FBI agents” have told him they’re frustrated by how the Clinton investigation was handled. [58]
Two days before FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency was reviewing the emails, Giuliani said that Trump’s campaign had “a couple of surprises left.” He said on Fox News (October 22):
“I think he's got a surprise or two that you're going to hear about in the next few days. I mean, I'm talking about some pretty big surprise […] you'll see. […] We've got a couple things up our sleeve that should turn this around.” [57]
Later, after the FBI re-launched their investigation of the emails, Giulani confirmed on “Fox & Friends” that he had heard about it from former FBI agents: [57]
“I did nothing to get it out, I had no role in it,” he said. “Did I hear about it? You’re darn right I heard about it, and I can’t even repeat the language that I heard from the former FBI agents.”
“I had expected this for the last, honestly, to tell you the truth, I thought it was going to be about three or four weeks ago, because way back in July this started, they kept getting stymied looking for subpoenas, looking for records,” he said. [57]
“The president’s wrong in linking somehow by fixing climate change if he’s gonna fix it, he’s gonna fix terrorism. That’s absurd. There’s no connection between the two things. Where it’s like two different things. It’s like saying I’m gonna fix terrorism by curing cancer,” Giuliani told Cavuto. ““The terrorism that we’re dealing with is not emerging from desperation. Many of these people are middle class or rich people who are involved in the terrorism. This is an ideologically or religiously based – and I would say certainly a misinterpretation of the religion and a, or if you want to call it a hijacking of the religion – but the religion has been turned into an ideology,” Giuliani said. “It’s like saying communism was caused by climate change.” [60]
September, 2014
Rudy Giuliani spoke at the 5th Law of Shale Plays Conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The conference was presented by the Institute for Energy Law and the Energy and Mineral Law Foundation (EMLF).
Giuliani suggested Obama to fast-track applications to export natural gas as part of a foreign policy strategy: [53]
“You know how President Obama is looking at non-military options to solve things such as the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia? It would have been within our abilities to export a massive amount of natural gas […] which would then have an impact on the world price of natural gas and would deprive Putin of the only strength he has left in his economy.”
Giuliani also said that the energy industry should “massive campaign to educate the American people.” He added that “I would conduct this in the year 2015 — which is the lead-up to the 2016 presidential campaign — a very well thought-out, a very well-planned campaign throughout the United States. Maybe focus more in the key states where the presidential election will be battled out among the Democrats and Republicans to explain what this can do for us, what it can do for our economy.” [53]
Affiliations
Greenberg Traurig — Senior Advisor to Greenberg Traurig’s Executive Chairman and as the Chair of the Cybersecurity, Privacy and Crisis Management Practice. Also Shareholder. [61], [3]
B.A., Mathematics, Towson State College, 1968. [1]
M.S., Ph.D., Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, 1969, 1973. [1]
Background
Roger A. Pielke Sr. is a Senior Research Scientist, heading the the Pielke research group at CIRES (Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences), and a Senior Research Associate at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC). He is also an Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. Pielke Sr. served as Colorado State Climatologist from from 1999 to 2006. [2], [9]
Pielke Sr. has written on climate change denial blogs such as Watts Up With That, and has also praised that site's host and founder Anthony Watts for his work on climate change. [5]
His son, Roger Pielke Jr., is a climate science policy writer also working at the University Colorado in Boulder. Huffington Post writer David Roberts wrote that Pielke Jr. “been playing footsie with denialists and right-wing ideologues for years; they're his biggest fans,” and critics have noted that Pielke Jr.'s work has often been cited by climate change deniers. [6], [7], [8]
Stance on Climate Change
January, 2017
Writing on Twitter, Roger A. Pielke Sr. comments on President Obama's farewell speech: [10]
”[…] 'Change' in 'climate change' redundant. Climate always has changed on different time periods naturally.”
May, 2010
Writing on his blog, Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr., Roger Pielke provides an updated response to a question posed by Andry Revkin from August 26, 2005, whiich asked “Is most of the observed warming over the last 50 years likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations?” To this, Pielke Sr. responded: [3]
“The 2010 answer to the question by Andy Revkin […] remains NO.”
“The added greenhouse gases from human activity clearly have a role in increasing the heat content of the climate system from what it otherwise would be. However, there are other equally or even more important significant human climate forcings, as I summarized in my 2005 post and in the 2009 article […]
“We now know, however, that the natural variations of atmospheric and ocean circulation features within the climate system produces global average heat changes that are substantially larger than what was known in 2005. The IPCC models have failed to adequately simulate this effect.
“The answer to Andy’s question from 2005 is an even more clearly No. That is, a significant fraction of the observed warming over the last 50 years is NOT due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”
“[O]ur scientific view is that human impacts do play a significant role within the climate system.”
The authors list out three “hypothesis” as follows.
“Hypothesis 1: Human influence on cli-mate variability and change is of minimal importance, and natural causes dominate climate variations and changes on all time scales. In coming decades, the human influ-ence will continue to be minimal.'
Hypothesis 2a: Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influ-ences are significant and involve a diverse range of first- order climate forcings, includ-ing, but not limited to, the human input of carbon dioxide (CO2). Most, if not all, of these human influences on regional and global climate will continue to be of con-cern during the coming decades.
Hypothesis 2b: Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and are dominated by the emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, the most important of which is CO2. The adverse impact of these gases on regional and global climate constitutes the primary climate issue for the coming decades.”
According to the authors, “the evidence in the peer- reviewed literature (e.g., as summarized by National Research Council (NRC) [2005]) is predominantly in support of hypothesis 2a, in that a diverse range of first- order human climate forcings have been identified.”
Pielke Sr. later cites this paper in his testimony before the House Energy & Commerce Committee, where he also notes that “Hypothesis 2b is the IPCC perspective,” and then states that “Hypotheses 1 and 2b are inaccurate characterizations of the climate system.” [12]
“I definitely think that we humans have altered the climate system. I think we have a strong component that has been warming—for some reason, it has stopped. And I don't understand the reasons why.”
December, 2007
Pielke has said that his is “not a 'sceptical scientist'.” He writes: [14]
“On Climate Science, I state as a fundamental conclusion that
Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.”
“There are natural explanations for global warming of which a change in the output of solar energy is a candidate. However, none of the published work has convinced me that this can explain much of the observed global warming over the last several decades. Volcanic emissions are another natural global forcing, and it is well known that they produce cooling, such as after the eruption of Mount Pintatubo, where in August of 1991 it was estimated as -4 Watts per meter squared. There have not been eruptions of that magnitude since, such that the absence of such major eruptions might permit greater absorbed solar radiation in the climate system than otherwise would occur. However, this absence of eruptions resulting in any positive radiative imbalance for a period of time well after a major volcanic emission has also not been shown to occur. This leaves anthropogenic emissions as a source for global warming.”
”[…] we limit the communication to policymakers if we use climate change as a synonym for global warming. Global warming is just one aspect of a much more complicated environmental issue.”
Key Quotes
November 17, 2016
Writing in a comment at WattsUpWithThat, a user claiming to be Roger Pielke Sr. congratulates climate change denier Anthony Watts (Watts had, himself, congratulated Pielke in his blog post): [16], [17]
“Hi Anthony. Congratulations! You have significantly and positively contributed to climate science. All the best for the next ten years!!! Roger Sr”
November, 2011
In a Q&A with high school students, reporduced on his own blog, Roger Pielker Sr. wrote:
“[N]ot all glaciers and ice caps are melting. While the Arctic ice, for example, has been decreasing in areal extent…Antarctic sea ice coverage has not.” [18]
Melting is a response to warming. However, not all glaciers and ice caps are melting. [18]
September, 2011
In an entry on his own blog, Roger Pielke Sr. wrote:
“There has not been warming significantly, if at all, since 2003, as most everyone on all sides of the climate issue agree.” [19]
April, 2011
In an entry on his own blog, Roger Pielke Sr. wrote:
”[…] I have reproduced below the current plots of lower tropospheric temperature anomalies. The trend of temperatures using that climate metric is NOT accelerating, and, indeed, has not even been positive for over 12 years!” [20]
September 6, 2010
In an entry on his own blog, Roger Pielke Sr. wrote:
“[U]pper ocean heat, in terms of its annual average, did not accumulate during the period ~2004 through 2009.” [21]
June, 2009
In an entry on his own blog, Roger Pielke Sr. wrote:
“Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.” [22]
“Sea level has actually flattened since 2006.” [22]
“Hurricanes respond to their immediate environment, not a global average increase in heat!”
Key Deeds
September 8, 2016
Roger Pielke Sr. criticized the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for announcing that global warming had increased the chances of torrential rains by 40 percent. Pielke Sr. told The Washington Times that NOAA should be “embarrassed” by its rush to release the research, accusing the agency of “bias” and calling the study a “dismaying example of manipulation of science for political reasons.” [24]
“The models being used in the study have not shown the skill needed to make these definitive forecasts of changes in extreme rainfall statistics,” said Mr. Pielke in an email. “Also, the article is still under peer review and it was premature for NOAA to have done a press release.”
May 19, 2015
Roger Pielke Sr. wrote a guest post on Watts Up With That (WUWT), the blog managed by prominent climate change denier Anthony Watts. In his post, Pielke contends that climatologist Dr. Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASAGISSis “hiding from seven very inconvenient climate questions.” [5]
Pielke wrote that he had submitted a series of questions to Gavin Schmidt: “On March 18 2015, I submitted a set of questions to Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASAGISS, who initially seemed inclined to answer and ask some of his own. However, he now is not even replying to my e-mails.” [5]
Pielke goes on to post the questions at WUWT , stating that “By posting these questions, I am encouraging others to respond to the science issues I have raised, as well as be used in the future when Gavin is required to testify, such at a House and/or Senate committee.” [5]
One of those who responded was Ken Rice, Professor of Computational Astrophysics at the Institute for Astronomy of the University of Edinburgh. On his blog ...and Then There's Physics, Rice responds to one of Roger Pielke's questions, suggesting that the reason for an “apparent discrepancy between the system heat uptake rate estimated using an energy balance approach, and that estimated from ocean heat content measurements” is that “Roger appears to have made a number of mistakes in his calculation.” [25]
According to Pielke, who said he was on the AGU panel that helped draft the updated position on climate change, the AGU's statement was “incomplete” and gave to much emphasis to carbon dioxide:
“[I]t inaccurately, in my view, presents a view of climate change that is dominated by the emission of carbon dioxide and a few other greenhouse gases,” Pielke wrote. “Indeed, in my opinion, the committee, under the direction of Gerald North with the writing subgroup led by Susan Hassol, was clearly motivated to produce a statement of this one particular view. My viewpoint is that under this leadership, other views were never give an adequate opportunity to be discussed.”
In his complete testimony, Pielke Sr. outlined four main points, which he described as follows: [12]
“1. Research has shown that a focus on just carbon dioxide and a few other greenhouse gases as the dominant human influence on climate is too narrow, and misses other important human influences.
“2. The phrases 'global warming' and “climate change” are not the same. Global warming is a subset of climate change.
“3. The prediction (or projection) of regional weather, including extremes, decades into the future is far more difficult than commonly assumed. In addition, the attribution of extreme events to a particular subset of climate forcings is scientifically incomplete if the research ignores other relevant human and natural causes of extreme weather events.
“4. The climate science assessments of the IPCC and CCSP, as well as the various statements issued by the AGU, AMS, and NRC, are completed by a small subset of climate scientists who are often the same individuals in each case.”
November, 2009
Writing in the journal Eos, Pielke Sr. and other authors conclude that, while “The evidence predominantly suggests that humans are significantly altering the global environment, and thus climate, in a variety of diverse ways beyond the effects of human emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2,” that other factors in addition to man-made CO2 need to be considered, and also that “the cost- benefit analyses regarding the mitigation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases need to be considered along with the other human climate forcings in a broader environmental context, as well as with respect to their role in the climate system.” [11]
MJ: “So it's not that you are a “global warming skeptic”; it's that you think that global warming has been hyped at the expense of other problems.”
RAP: “That's exactly right. I would also add that climate change is much more than global warming. We have altered the climate significantly, say by land-use change, without changing the global average surface temperature, yet it has big impacts. So I definitely think that we humans have altered the climate system. I think we have a strong component that has been warming—for some reason, it has stopped. And I don't understand the reasons why.”
September 3, 2008
Roger A. Pielke Sr. responded to an article written by AP Science writer Seth Borenstein. DeSmog reported that Pielke particularly objected to the following lines written by Borenstein: [28]
“Global warming has probably made Hurricane Gustav a bit stronger and wetter, some top scientists said Sunday, but the specific connection between climate change and stronger hurricanes remains an issue of debate.”
“Measurements of the energy pumped into the air from the warm waters — essentially fuel for hurricanes — has increased dramatically since the mid 1990s, mostly in the strongest of hurricanes, according to a soon-to-be published paper in the journal Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems by Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.”
“Warmer water makes the surface air warmer, which means it could contain more moisture. That means more hot moist air rises up the hurricane, serving as both fuel for the storm and extra rainfall coming back down, said Peter Webster, professor of atmospheric sciences at Georgia Tech.”
“The focusing on global warming as the reason for any hurricane (or making it more likely to occur or become more intense) ignores that natural variations are not only more important than indicated by the AP news story, but also that the human influence involves a diverse range of first-order climate forcings, including, but not limited global warming [which, of course, has not occurred since at least mid-2004!].”
August 23, 2005
Roger A. Pielke Sr. resigned from a panel that had been generating a report of the Bush administration on atmospheric temperature trends.
The New York Times reported that Pielke had made his decision to resign after three papers had been published online on Aug. 11 by the journal Science. The papers explained how earlier analysis had failed to find warming in the troposphere, attributing it to errors in satellite and balloon studies. Several authors of those papers, who were also authors of the government report, said those findings would be discussed in the final report. [29]
Climate change denier John R. Christy, who had worked with Pielke on the Bush administration's report, commented:
“This process is the worst way to generate scientific information.”
University of Colorado-Boulder — Senior Research Associate, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (November 2005 - present). [2]
AMS— Fellow (1982). Serving on the AMS Committee on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification (October 2009-present). [2]
American Geophiscal Union (AGU) — Fellow (2004). Currently serving on the AGUEOS Advisory Board on Natural Hazards (August 2009 - present). [2]
Duke University — former adjunct faculty member in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. [2]
University of Arizona — Former visiting Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. [2]
Publications
According to his profile at CIRES, Dr. Pielke has published over 380 papers in peer-reviewed journals, 55 chapters in books, co-edited 9 books, and made over 700 presentations during his career. A listing of papers can be viewed at the project website. [2]
“ROGERPIELKE, JR.” Center for Science & Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado Boulder. Archived December 22, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/lzU0O
Bachelor of science degree in civil engineering (B.S.C.E.) at the University of Texas at Austin (1975). [1]
Background
Rex W. Tillerson served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ExxonMobil from 2006-2016. Tillerson announced his retirement on December 14, 2016, after his nomination for the position of U.S. Secretary of State by President-elect Donald Trump. Exxon Mobil Corp said that Darren Woods would replace Rex Tillerson as chairman and CEO after Tillerson was chosen by President-elect Donald Trump to serve as the next U.S. Secretary of State. [2], [3], [4]
Tillerson was fired as Secretary of State on March 13, 2018 after learning about the change from a tweet by the President. Trump announced he would be replaced with Mike Pompeo. [72]
“The chances that he will view Russia with Exxon Mobil DNA are close to 100 percent,” said Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, a public interest group based in Washington. [5]
Tillerson earned Moscow's Order of Friendship award from Russia and has previously voiced skepticism about American sanction. He was also previously the president of Exxon Ventures (CIS) Inc. and Exxon Neftegas Limited, where he was responsible for Exxon's holdings in Russia and the Caspian Sea. The New York Times notes that Tillerson also owns $218 million in Exxon stock, and has a pension plan worth nearly $70 million. [5]
Before confirmation, Tillerson announced he would sever his ties with the oil company to comply with federal ethics rules. Exxon announced that it would pay him out in cash for his 2-million-plus shares and that money would then be transferred to an independently managed trust. If confirmed, Tillerson also promised to sell over 600,000 Exxon shares he currently owns. [58]
According to data collected by Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets project, ExxonMobil has given more than $33 million since 1997 to over 60 different organizations that work to spread misinformation about man-made climate change and deny the scientific consensus. [6]
In December, 2016, The Waterkeeper Alliance, represented by Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic, submitted a 54-page petition with 358 footnotes and 448 pages containing 43 exhibits to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling for an end of all of its federal contracts with ExxonMobil. [11]
DeSmog reports that the petition serves as a “corporate rap sheet” including details on what the company knew about climate change, and could provide fodder for members of Congress to “ask tough questions” of Tillerson at his congressional confirmation hearing. [12]
Exxon executives, speaking confidentially, argued that Mr. Tillerson had pushed for more research on advanced biofuels, carbon capture and sequestration, and carbon taxes to reduce greenhouse emissions. They also said that Tillerson had moved toward acknowledging climate change as a serious problem, however Tillerson also strongly defended Exxon during the investigations by state attorneys general. [13]
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Tillerson said. “They're dealing with a period of time that happened decades ago,” he said. “I'm not sure how helpful it would be for me to talk about it, particularly as we're leading up to some very important meetings that are going to occur in Paris here in just a few weeks. I don't want to be a distraction. I really don't want this to be a distraction. There's some serious issues that need to be talked about.”
Rex Tillerson & the Trump Administration
On December 12, 2016, The New York Times announced that Donald J. Trump had officially nominated Rex Tillerson as his Secretary of State. He was officially confirmed for the position on February 1, 2017. The New York Times also reported that Tillerson's confirmation would present a challenge, given his extensive ties to Russia, and that ExxonMobil's business dealings with Russia would also come under additional scrutiny. [15], [59]
The Wall Street Journal noted that Tillerson's nomination even surprised senior Exxon officials, given Tillerson's complete lack of prior government experience. [16]
Republican Senator John McCain said Tillerson’s connections to Mr. Putin were “a matter of concern to me” and promised to examine them closely if he were appointed.
“Vladimir Putin is a thug, bully and a murderer, and anybody else who describes him as anything else is lying,” Mr. McCain said on Fox News. [15]
“I don't want to comment on a phantom nominee today,” he stated. “The Russian are not our friends. I hope that those who are going to be in positions of responsibility in the new administration share my view.” [17]
Trump described Tillerson as “among the most accomplished business leaders and international deal makers in the world.” [18]
“Rex Tillerson’s career is the embodiment of the American dream. Through hard work, dedication and smart deal making, Rex rose through the ranks to become CEO of ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest and most respected companies,” the Trump news release read. “Rex knows how to manage a global enterprise, which is crucial to running a successful State Department.”
According to Politico, Rex Tillerson was interviewed by Donald Trump after a suggestion by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who both count ExxonMobil among their private consulting clients. Rice's recommendation was further backed by Robert Gates three days later. [19] Tillerson's nomination was reportedly advocated by both Steve Bannon and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. [20]
After Trump's announcement, Media Matters reports that numerous news outlets had reported prominent figures including James Baker III, Robert M. Gates, and Condoleezza Rice had expressed support for Tillerson, with some mentioning that their support adds credibility to the pick. However, those outlets failed to disclose that Baker, Gates, and Rice all have significant financial ties to Tillerson, ExxonMobil, and the company's business in Russia. [21]
Bob Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp, said “Rex Tillerson is one of the best choices he could ever make as secretary of state of our country.” [22]
Bloomberg notes that Tillerson's ties to Putin go back to 1999, when they met on Sakhalin Island in Russia’s Far East. As recently as 2015, Tillerson was meeting with “Putin's inner circle.” The relationship was something touted by Trump as an advantage: [23]
“A great advantage is he knows many of the players, and he knows them well,” Trump said in a Fox News interview. “He does massive deals in Russia. He does massive deals for the company – not for himself, for the company.” [23]
The Wall Street Journal describes the relationship is both Tillerson's biggest claim to his nomination as secretary of state under Donald Trump, and also “potentially the biggest concern about him,” given the investigation into Russia's alleged hacking. [24]
“I have a very close relationship with [Mr. Putin],” Tillerson told students at the University of Texas, his alma mater, in February. “I don’t agree with everything he’s doing. I don’t agree with everything a lot of leaders are doing. But he understands that I am a businessman. And I have invested a lot of money, our company has invested a lot of money, in Russia, very successfully.” [24]
The Guardian reports that Tillerson's name was on a set of leaked documents given to the german newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung by an anonymous source. One leaked 2001 document originated from the corporate registry in the Bahamas, and detailed his directorship of Exxon Deftegas. [57]
“Though there is nothing untoward about this directorship, it has not been reported before and is likely to raise fresh questions over Tillerson’s relationship with Russia ahead of a potentially stormy confirmation hearing by the US senate foreign relations committee,” The Guardian's Luke Harding and Hanes Munzinger reported. [57]
“Exxon boosted its Russian holdings to 63.7 million acres in 2014 from 11.4 million at the end of 2013, according to data from U.S. regulatory filings,” reported Bloomberg in March 2015. “That dwarfs the 14.6 million acres of rights Exxon holds in the U.S., which until last year was its largest exploration prospect.” [26]
In 2014, shortly after the United States and allies had applied sanctions on Russia for its action with the Ukraine, President Obama had asked American business leaders not to addend the major business forum in Russa that may. While Tillerson obeyed, the New York Times reports that he found another way to get a seat by sending his top exploration official in his place. That official, Neil W. Duffin, signed an agreement promoting more business with the state-owned Rosneft and expand joint drilling in the Arctic Ocean. [13]
“Mr. Tillerson has opposed sanctions on Russia, which are the single greatest obstacle to foreign investment in that country,” the New York Times notes. “Russia has two enormous areas for new oil development, in the Barents Sea and the Bazhenov shale field in western Siberia, that are essentially closed to development because of a lack of foreign capital and expertise. Exxon was poised to invest in both areas before the sanctions.” [13]
In a 2005 interview, Tillerson laid out his strategy for doing business in Russia: [28]
“ExxonMobil is not interested in buying shares in other companies, because it does not allow us to fully do what we do best. We invest in Russia, not only money,”
Exxon-Russia Timeline
1990s – Exxon's interest in Russia started in the early 90s, with former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond's attempt to buy into the Russian energy company Yukos. [29]
1998 – Rex Tillerson was appointed head of Exxon Neftegas Limited, which was in charge of the Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project off the coast of Siberia. [30]
1999 – Tillerson met with Putin on the Sakhalin Island as Exxon began relations with the Russia state-owned Rosneft. Tillerson and Putin met several times after this, building Exxon's business interests in Russia. [31]
2004 – Tillerson became president of ExxonMobil. In the same year, Igor Sechin took control of Rosneft, the company controlling the Russian portion of the Sakhalin-1 consortium. [30]
2011 – Rosneft and Exxon signed a $3.2 billion deal, as part of a “Strategic Cooperation Agreement“ giving Exxon drilling permissions in the Russian Arctic in exchange for stakes in some of Exxon's projects in the US and Canada. “These agreements are important milestones in this strategic relationship,” Tillerson said at the time. [32]
2012 – Sechin visited New York in April 2012 as part of a publicity tour with Tillerson to promote the ExxonMobil-Rosneft cooperation. [30]
2014 – The Artic deal with Rosneft was cancelled when the US imposed sanctions on Russia over its annexation of Crimea. Tillerson condemned the sanctions, saying they caused “broad collateral damage.” [34]
Stance on Climate Change
October, 2016
“At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious and warrant thoughtful action.” [35]
May 29, 2013
“If you examine the temperature record of the last decade, it really hadn’t changed.” [36]
“Well, I can’t conclude there is something magical about 350 because that suggests these models are very competent and our examination about the models, are that they’re not competent […]” [36]
March, 2013
“[T]he facts remain there are uncertainties around the climate, climate change, why it's changing, what the principal drivers of climate change are. […] at the end of it there are still a range of uncertain outcomes around these models” [37]
On CO2:
“It's – it is clear that there is an impact. […] What's not clear is our ability to measure with a great degree of accuracy or certainty exactly how large that impact will be.” [37]
June 27, 2012
Rex Tillerson has said we need to look at how to adapt to climate change and changing weather patterns: [38]
“As we have looked at the most recent studies coming – and the IPCC reports, which we – I've seen the drafts; I can't say too much because they're not out yet. But when you predict things like sea level rise, you get numbers all over the map. If you take a – what I would call a reasonable scientific approach to that, we believe those consequences are manageable. They do require us to begin to exert – or spend more policy effort on adaptation. What do you want to do if we think the future has sea level rising four inches, six inches? Where are the impacted areas, and what do you want to do to adapt to that?
“And as human beings as a – as a – as a species, that's why we're all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around – we'll adapt to that. It's an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions. And so I don't – the fear factor that people want to throw out there to say we just have to stop this, I do not accept.
I do believe we have to – we have to be efficient and we have to manage it, but we also need to look at the other side of the engineering solution, which is how are we going to adapt to it. And there are solutions. It's not a problem that we can't solve.”
January, 2010
According to Tillerson, while there may be climate change, it was not yet clear “to what extent and therefore what can you do about it. […] There is not a model available today that is competent.” [39]
“My view is that this is so extraordinarily important to people the world over, that to not have a debate on it is irresponsible. To suggest that we know everything we need to know about these issues is irresponsible.”
“And I will take all the criticism that comes with it. Anybody that tells you that they got this figured out is not being truthful. There are too many complexities around climate science for anybody to fully understand all of the causes and effects and consequences of what you may chose to do to attempt to affect that. We have to let scientists to continue their investigative work, unencumbered by political influences. This is too important to be cute with it.”
May 30, 2007
“There's much we know and can agree on around the climate change issue, and there’s much that we just don’t believe we do know…and we want to have a debate about the things we know and understand, the things we know about that we don’t understand very well, and the things we don’t even know about around this very complex issue of climate science. So that will continue to be our position.” [41], [42]
“We don't have a difference of views that it's an important issue. We have differences about what we know and what we don't know.” [43]
February, 2007
“My understanding is there’s not a clear 100 percent conclusion drawn,” Tillerson told an industry gathering in Houston. “Nobody can conclusively 100 percent know how this is going to play out. I think that’s important.” [44]
Tillerson poked fun at ethanol, calling it “moonshine”: [44]
“I am not an expert on biofuels,” he said. “I am not an expert on farming. I don’t have a lot of technology to add to moonshine.” [44]
March, 2006
“We recognize that climate change is a serious issue. We recognize that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors affecting climate change.” [45]
2005
“Now, the question is, is part of what’s happening related to something other than natural variability? And if so, how do you determine what that is? And the reality is, the science isn’t there to make that determination.” [46]
Key Quotes
May 25, 2016
“The world is going to have to continue using fossil fuels, whether they like it or not.” [47]
May 5, 2016
“Advances in hydraulic fracturing have significantly increased volumes of cleaner-burning domestic natural gas, helping bring down U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to levels not seen since the 1990s. In fact, thanks to the shale revolution, the U.S. is now leading the world in reducing emissions – a fact rarely conveyed in the public discourse of our policy decisions.” [48]
“If you want to live by the precautionary principle, then crawl up in a ball and live in a cave.” [49]
January, 2009
“A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions – from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers. […]
A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable. This last point is important. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement.” [50]
August, 2008
“It doesn't do the consumer a lot of good to substitute an alternative fuel that costs $5 for gasoline that costs $4.” [51]
“The dominant energy source in the future will continue to be oil and natural gas.” [52]
In a letter to Senate Foreign Relations chair Bob Corker (R-TN), Tillerson wrote, “I believe that the Department will be able to better execute its mission by integrating certain envoys and special representative offices within the regional and functional bureaus, and eliminating those that have accomplished or outlived their original purpose.” [66]
Tillerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the sanctions would reduce “the flexibility to turn that heat up” when working with Russia on anti-terrorism efforts or to resolve the Syrian civil war, Politico reported. [68]
Tillerson said the U.S. and Russia “have some channels that are open where we're starting to talk, and I think what I wouldn't want to do is close the channels off with something new.” [68]
July 20, 2017
The New York Times reported that ExxonMobil would be fined $2 million by the Treasury Department for violating sanctions that the U.S. imposed on Russia in 2014. The violation occured while Rex Tillerson was the company's chief executive. [63]
“Exxon Mobil demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements,” the Treasury reported in the penalty. “Exxon Mobil caused significant harm to the Ukraine-related sanctions program.” [63]
“It should really come as no surprise that Exxon Mobil would violate the law in order to advance its profit interests. Nor is it a surprise that Trump Administration officials–Rex Tillerson in particular–would be implicated in such a scandal. Exxon Mobil’s blatant disregard for the rule of law is just the latest chapter in its decades-long campaign of lying, obfuscation and regulatory interference that has delayed climate action for a generation. Let’s not forget this corporation’s track record: As early as the 1960’s, Exxon understood the global consequences of its business, both human and environmental, and chose to bury the truth.” [64]
“Schneiderman claims that beginning in 2007, ExxonMobil used one set of figures in describing carbon-related risks to investors but internally used another, secret set. The net result was to vastly understate the financial danger to the company,” Zegart wrote. [62]
The June 2 court filing also accuses ExxonMobil of destroying documents, despite its legal obligation to preserve records relevant to the attorney general's investigation on potential fraud in the company's disclosures about climate change. [62]
“These failures directly resulted in the destruction of months, and in many cases, more than a year’s worth, of emails and other electronic documents belonging to key custodians including the company’s top management and reserves analysts,” the attorney general wrote. [62]
Tillerson and President Donald Trump were present at a deal signed between ExxonMobil and the state-owned Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) to study a co-owned natural gas refinery in the Gulf of Mexico, DeSmog reported. [69]
While the official ExxonMobil press release mentions that ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods was in the room for the signing, as well as ExxonMobil Saudi Arabia CEO Philippe Ducom and SABIC executives, it failed to mention the private signing ceremony attended afterwards by both Trump and Rex Tillerson. [70]
DeSmog found images of Tillerson and Trump at the signing ceremony via the Saudi Press Agency's English-language press Twitter account, which released a series of photos of Woods and Tillerson shaking hands with SABICCEO Yousef Al-Benyan and Saudi Defense Minister Prince Mohammad bin Salman, respectively: [71]
Public Citizen energy program director Tyson Slocum told DeSmog that Tilleson's presence could violate his recusal agreement regarding Exxon affairs:
“The President's Saudi trip was a bizarre Art of the Deal-esque foreign policy disaster: a sleazy mix of conflicted government-arranged corporate endorsement deals,” Slocum told DeSmog. “Most troubling of all was Tillerson's presence and role in accommodating Exxon's deal with the House of Saud, thereby violating the former CEO's recusal agreement. Trump and Tillerson's Riyadh embarrassment is just another sad indication of the administration's prioritization of crony corporate access masquerading as a jumbled assembly of foreign policy and economic development.”
The Office of Global Change web page, before (left) and after (right) its alterations by the Trump administration. Credit: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative
“Deleted from the text was: ‘The United States is taking a leading role by advancing an ever-expanding suite of measures at home and abroad.’ Also stricken were references to mitigation efforts and other mentions of leading on climate change.
In its place is more generic language, solely referencing that the office represents the U.S. at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and other international forums. It does use the word ‘lead’ once, but only saying the office leads the U.S. government in participating with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
January, 2017
Testifying before the Senate, Tillerson said that “I don't see it as the imminent national security threat that perhaps others do,” The Daily Caller reported. Tillerson added: [60]
“The facts on the ground are indisputable in terms of what's happening with drought, disease, insect populations, all the things you cite, but the science behind the clear connection is not conclusive. And, there are many reports out there that we are unable yet to connect specific events to climate change alone,” Tillerson said. [60]
Dem. Senator Jeff Merkley, citing Hurricane Sandy as an example, said “What we're seeing are a lot of scientific reports that will say we can tell you the odds increased, we can't tell you any specific event was the direct consequence,” Merkley said, citing Hurricane Sandy as an example of global warming-induced weather. [60]
To which Tillerson responded that “I think as you indicated, there's some literature out there that suggests that. There's other literature that says it's inconclusive,” Tillerson responded. [60]
“One of the things we– I'm sorry to hear that viewpoint because it's overwhelmingly– the scales are on one side of this argument,” Merkley said. [60]
“We have long supported a carbon tax as the best policy of those being considered. Replacing the hodge-podge of current, largely ineffective regulations with a revenue-neutral carbon tax would ensure a uniform and predictable cost of carbon across the economy. It would allow market forces to drive solutions.” [35]
According to Tillerson, “At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious and warrant thoughtful action.” He adds that “In our industry, the best hope for the future is to enable and encourage long-term investments in both proven and new technologies, while supporting effective policies.” [35]
“With all of that, though, the facts remain there are uncertainties around the climate, climate change, why it's changing, what the principal drivers of climate change are. And I think the issue that I think is unfortunate in the public discourse is that the loudest voices are what I call the absolutist, the people who are absolutely certain that it is entirely man- made and you can attribute all of the climate change to nothing but man- made burning of fossil fuels. And on the other end of the debate I certainly would say to absolutists who say there is absolutely no relationship. And the truth of the matter based on our investigation is it's somewhere in between.
Climate science is probably one of the most extraordinarily complex areas of scientific study that anyone can undertake. The variables are numerous. Many of the variables are measurable and – and we can replicate models. Many of the variables we cannot measure them. We cannot model them but we know they're part of the climate system. And so the models are extraordinarily complicated. And therefore how certain do you feel about the competency of the model and its ability to predict the future. And it's my view that the models have become increasingly more competent because of high speed computing capabilities and just more sophisticated mathematical modelling and more data to inform the model. But at the end of it there are still a range of uncertain outcomes around these models. And every scientist I know agrees there's a range of uncertainty. And if you read that PCC-detailed report they talk about these ranges of uncertainty.” [37]
On CO2, Tillerson said “it is clear that there is an impact”:
Of CO2 there is a difference I think, a range in that model as to what the impact of 600 ppm versus 400 ppm or 300 ppm would be. There are some ranges around those numbers, even, because it's not clear when we introduce that into the climate model how some of the other elements that we're not able to model so well may act to, in a different way. It's – it is clear that there is an impact. […] What's not clear is our ability to measure with a great degree of accuracy or certainty exactly how large that impact will be. And that's why most of the impact studies you see have ranges around them.” [37]
On extreme weather and climate change, Tillerson says “There has been nothing to confirm that there is a link.” However, he later adds “Well, I view global warming and climate change as a serious risk. And I'm in the risk management business. “ [37]
January 20, 2010
Rex Tillerson presented congressional testimony on behalf of ExxonMobil, saying that while the company acknowledged man-made climate change to some degree, it was not yet clear “to what extent and therefore what can you do about it.” Tillerson added, “There is not a model available today that is competent” for understanding the science and predicting the future. [39]
The New York Times reported that Tillerson's congressional testimony was later used an example of “questionable public statements” by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in his investigation of ExxonMobil's knowledge of climate change. [53]
November 13, 2007
DeSmog's Ross Gelbspan reported that on the same day Hillary Clinton released her plan to reduce the US addiction to foreign oil imports and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Rex Tillerson, release dan “isolationism” in energy policy, arguing that attempts to pursue energy independence are futile and counter-productive. [54]
Tillerson stated that:
“Regardless, no conceivable combination of demand moderation or domestic supply development can realistically close the gap and eliminate Americans' need for imports.” [54]
November 30, 2006
Rex Tillerson spoke at the Boston College Chief Executives' Club on the subjects of oil price fluctuation, peak oil, climate change, and energy security. Tillerson largely denounces wind and solar power as small players in the overall energy mix, noting that “fossil fuels will remain the predominant energy force for the foreseeable future.” [55]
Regarding climate change, Tillerson notes that “the potential risk to society could prove to be significant,” yet suggests that further study is needed, and ends his speech calling for policies that would open up the U.S. to more oil and gas exploration. On climate, Tillerson calls for “ongoing study of not only the possible forcing effects resulting from man-kind's socio economic activity, but equally if not more important a better understanding of the natural forcing elements that are, and have been a part of the climate system since the dawn of time.” [55]
Below is the complete audio, followed by notable excerpts from Tillerson's speech: [55]
“No energy source of sufficient scale to meet global needs comes without consequences.” [4:47]
“Oil, like all fossil fuels, is indeed finite. But it is far from finished.” [5:18]
“Wind and solar are likely to see double digit growth rates over the next 25 years, due in large part to government mandates and subsidies.” [6:13]
“However, these alternatives build upon a relatively small base. And, as I mentioned earlier, are expanding within a world energy system that is itself expanding significantly. For this reason, they will not fundamentally change the world energy mix—Despite their impressive growth.” [6:37]
“Until breakthroughs are achieved and implemented worldwide, fossil fuels will remain the predominant energy force for the foreseeable future. No other energy source holds the same advantages of availability, affordability, and adaptability.”[7:17]
“So the real question is not whether we will soon reach peak oil, but whether we can reach peak performance.” [7:34]
“There simply are no silver bullets to the energy-environment challenge.” [17:55]
“While our scientific understanding of climate change continues to improve, it nonetheless remains today an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. Having said that, the potential risk to society could prove to be significant. So, despite the areas of uncertainty that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the potential risk.” [18:10]
“In my view this means we should continue to fund ongoing scientific research, without conditioned or preconceived outcomes, to increase our understanding of all of the forcings which are part of this very elegant but very complex climate system in which we live.” [18:37]
“Including ongoing study of not only the possible forcing effects resulting from man-kind's socio economic activity, but equally if not more important a better understanding of the natural forcing elements that are, and have been a part of the climate system since the dawn of time.” [18:55]
“While the science community continues their study, we should pursue public policies that start gradually, and learn along the way, with full recognition of the economic consequences of certain actions. And we should bring all countries into the effort.” [19:14]
“This is a global-wide, century scale problem. 85% of the future growth in CO2 emissions will come from the developing world. Only 15% from the developed economies. [19:30]
“We should start on a path to reduce the likelihood of the worst outcomes and understand the context of managing carbon emissions among other developing world priorities such as economic development, poverty eradication, and public health. Consistent with this approach, we should take steps now to reduce emissions in an effective and meaningful way. Improving the fuel economy of our light-duty vehicle fleet is one such way. Reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants must also be a priority. […] [19:47]
“The important point is that a variety of ways exist to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions but weighing the options effectively requires understanding the potential scale, cost, and economic and quality of life tradeoffs.” [20:25]
“Policies that promote open access to untapped oil and natural gas resources in our country can help reduce our dependence on imports […]. Ours is the only country in the world with major oil and natural gas resources that as a matter of policy denies its own citizens the economic benefits of developing and utilizing the energy resources that belong to them.” [23:23]
BA, University of Oxford, Modern History (1978 - 1981). [1]
Background
David Rose is a British author and journalist who has published a wide range of articles challenging man-made climate change, frequently citing material and reports from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and global warming skeptics such as Judith Curry, and Benny Peiser, of the GWPF.
Davis Rose's first job was as a reporter withthe London magazine Time Out (1981 - 1984), and his since worked with a range of papers and magazines including The Guardian(which has itself since published critiques of Rose's articles at the Mail on Sunday), The Observer, and BBC Current affairs TV. Rose became a freelance writer in 2000, later a contributing editor of Vanity Fair in 2002, and in 2008 a special investigations writer forthe Mail on Sunday. [1], [6]
Writing in the New Statesman, Rose described his work with British intelligence disseminating what he described as “sheer disinformation.” According to Rose, if he was told something by the secret service and it proved to be false, “there would be no comeback, no accountability. I could put up, or shut up.” He also added “To my everlasting regret, I strongly supported the Iraq invasion, in person and in print.” [7]
DeSmog previously reported on David Rose's “misinformation legacy,” pointing to an article by The Guardian's George Monbiot who summed up Rose's errors over time. Monbiot also wrote of Rose's potential role in the Iraq war, noting that The Observer “was strongly influenced by Rose's reporting” at the time. “Rose's articles for the paper uncritically reported the claims made by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Chalabi later admitted that they were incorrect,” Monbiot wrote. [8], [9]
“Since the Iraq debacle, Rose has latterly been writing articles attacking climate science for the Daily Mail. He has distinguished himself by the same uncritical reliance on dodgy sources that caused his catastrophic mistakes about Iraq,” Monbiot added.
“[T]here is little doubt that the rapid warming of the 1980s and early 1990s has slowed – although greenhouse gas emissions have surged.
[…] Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Forum, said ‘there has been no statistically significant warming trend since 1997’ – because the entire increase over this period was smaller than the error margin.” [13]
November, 2013
“The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover. […] The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.” [3]
March, 2013
“No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well… what do YOU think?” [14]
January, 2012
“The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.” [2]
July, 2011
“[T]he world temperature trend since 1995 has been flat, with no evidence of warming at all.” [15]
Well, right now the promised shale gas bonanza looks more distant than sustainable power from nuclear fusion, so arguably not. And no one yet knows whether UK shale formations are geologically viable for large scale production - some say probably not.
“Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record,” Rose writes. ” The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, has been caused by the end of El Nino – the warming of surface waters in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America.” [16]
September, 2013
“The [global warming] pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.” [17]
January 6, 2013
“The stupidest international agreement since the Treaty of Versailles expired at midnight on New Year’s Eve. Fifteen years after its launch, the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change died a miserable failure. Few are likely to mourn.” [18]
January 9, 2010
“The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.” [19]
Key Deeds
February 4, 2017
David Rose published a piece inThe Mail on Sunday titled “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.” In the article, Rose claimed to reveal “astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.” [52]
The article, which was shared in a number of mainstream media outlets including The Times, Fox News, and even referenced in US Congress by Representative Lamar Smith. As DeSmog UK reported, the Mail on Sunday was forced to publish a correction for Rose's article after the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) ruled that the Mail on Sunday had “failed to take care over the accuracy of the article” and “had then failed to correct these significantly misleading statements.” [53], [54], [55], [56]
The ruling is now published above the original article at the Mail on Sunday’s website. IPSO said that “the newspaper’s claims that Dr Bates’ testimony had provided ‘irrefutable evidence’ that the paper had been based on ‘misleading, ‘unverified’ data’’, leading – as the headline claimed – to world leaders being ‘duped’ over global warming, and ‘convinced’ to invest billions in climate change, went much further than the concerns which Dr Bates had detailed in his blog or in the interview.” [57], [58]
The ruling added that the article “did not represent criticisms of the data collection process” but had instead taken as “assertions of fact that the data had been demonstrated conclusively to be wrong and had a significant impact on the decision making of world leaders, with an additional implication this had been part of a wilful attempt to deceive.” [57]
Bates himself clarified his account, which appears to be different than David Rose's portrayal. Speaking with E&E News, as reported by The New York Times: [59]
“The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” Bates said. [59]
February, 2017
David Rose writes an “exclusive” for the Mail on Sunday making a number of inflammator claims about the background to a scientific paper, published in the journal Science, which updated global temperature data to account for changes in the way ocean temperature measurements were taken.
In summary, Rose's story claimed a “whistleblower”, retired National Oceanic and Atmsopheric Administration scientist John Bates, had revealed that the paper, led by his former superior Tom Karl, had been rushed, used flawed data and had been politically motivated. Further, the story claimed that this single paper had “strongly influenced” that climate negotiations in Paris in late 2015. Rose's story was based heavily on a guest blog post, written by Bates, on the blog of contrarian scientist Judith Curry.
Scientists and other journalists discovered several major flaws in the story. Climate Home spoke to several UN climate negotiators, who explained the Karl paper had no influence on the Paris talks. A factcheck at Carbon Brief by Berkeley Earth climate scientist Zeke Hausfather showed how Rose had ignored other scientific articles which had confirmed the work done by Karl et al. The claim that the Karl paper was “rushed” was refuted by the editor of Science, who revealed that in fact that paper had taken longer than usual to go through peer review at the journal.
December 12, 2016
David Rose went on ”GWPFTV” to speak with climate science denier David Whitehouse on “the hostile and irrational reactions to his article on the drop in global temperatures since the El Nino ‘spike’ in early 2016.” Video below. [20]
“Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record,” Rose writes. ” The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, has been caused by the end of El Nino – the warming of surface waters in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America.” [28]
Seven scientists analyzed the article at Climate Feedback, and concluded the article was a “textbook case of cherry picking,” ignoring limitations on the data it comments on. “This is akin to claiming that sea level rise has ended because high tide in one area has ebbed” the summary adds. [29]
“Overall the article is made highly misleading by omitting critical information and cherry-picking one particular dataset and time period. It also incorrectly interprets comments from climate scientists,” Ed Hawkins, Principal Research Fellow at National Centre for Atmospheric Science writes. [29]
David Rose's article was mentioned in the far-right website Breitbartwhere noted climate change denier and journalist James Delingpole wrote that it was evidence that global temperatures had plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of the year.” Delingpole added that “the news has been greeted with an eerie silence by the world’s alarmist community.” [30]
Daily KoSreported that Lamar Smith, Chairman of the US House Science Committee, eventually posted a link to the Breitbart article on Twitter. “David Rose’s story doesn’t actually link to the 'evidence' he pretends to give and that “evidence” isn’t real,” the Daily KoS's Walter Einenkel writes. [31]
Rose can be seen sitting next to James Delingpole, a prolific journalist at the far-right news site Breitbart who has repeatedly cited David Rose in his own articles. See screenshots below [1:39], second row on the left, and third person over, and more clearly at [34:38].
Another notable audience member was Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Commercial Secretary to the Treasury. Such an audience suggests the event provided an opportunity for Rose to rub shoulders with, members of the press, the government, and with GWPF.
Rose wrote in the Mail on Sunday that the panel “will focus on thousands of ‘adjustments’ that have been made to temperature records kept at individual weather stations around the world.
Sceptics have argued that the effect of such adjustments – made when instruments are replaced or recalibrated, or heat-producing buildings are erected close to weather station sites – has skewed the records.” [32]
The GWPF project was billed as “The International Temperature Data Review Project” and claimed that “the global surface temperature records have been the subject of considerable and ongoing controversy” due to so-called “adjustments” causing data to exhibit “a much larger warming trend than the raw data.” [33]
Discussing whether 2014 was the warmest year on record, David Rose attempted to discredit the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), claiming they were only 38 percent sure that was the case. Rose goes on to promote the debunked viewpoint of an ongoing global warming “pause”: [13], [4]
“Climate sceptics insisted that the new figures showed the warming ‘pause’ had continued,” Rose quoted Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Forum. Whitehouse said “there has been no statistically significant warming trend since 1997’ – because the entire increase over this period was smaller than the error margin.”
Rose then goes on to lament the supposedly small budgets of climate change denial groups like the Global Warming Policy Forum. The Global Warming Policy Forum is an extension of The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), conducting activities outside of the nonprofit Foundation's abilities as an “educational charity.” According to Rose, the Forum “has an annual budget of £300,000 and employs just three people.” [36]
Rose quotes GWPF's director Benny Peiser: “At the end of the day, someone will have to be held accountable for us committing economic suicide. We are the only organisation that does what we do – against hundreds on the other side, all saying the same thing.” [36]
August 30, 2014
David Rose writes that, seven years after warnings by Al Gore, “The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.” [37]
Rose quotes climate change contrarian scientist Judith Curry who said ‘The Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed.’ Curry also claimed that the majority of sea ice decline was due to “natural variability.” [37]
Rose does admit that “few scientists doubt that carbon-dioxide emissions cause global warming, and that this has caused Arctic ice to decline,” however goes on to suggest that there is “much uncertainty about the speed of melting and how much of it is due to human activity.” [37]
David Rose authored a similar article on the Antarctic in July, 2014, again quoting Judith Curry: “We do not have a quantitative, predictive understanding of the rise in Antarctic sea ice extent,” she said. Curry also repeated the debunked myth of a 16-year global warming “pause”: [38]
“Prof Curry also revealed that because of the ‘pause’, in which world average temperatures have not risen for more than 16 years, the Arctic ice decline has been ‘touted’ by many as the most important evidence for continued global warming,” Rose wrote. [38]
May 17, 2014
David Rose contends that “Ground-breaking climate research” that had found that global warming due to greenhouse gases was “significantly exaggerated” was “controversially ‘covered up’” [39]
A paper by Professor Lennart Bengtsson of Reading University had been rejected by a number of journals. According to Rose, “The rejection sparked accusations that scientists had crossed an important line by censoring findings that were not helpful to their views.” [39]
One of the journals had rejected the paper because “reviewers questioned the paper’s methods,” Rose wrote. Professor Bengtsson, 79, was a former member of the council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). [39]
Bengtsson said he was accused by former friends and colleagues of “crossing into the deniers’ camp” when he joined the GWPF, a reaction which Rose described as “a pressure so great he had feared for his health.” [39]
November, 2013
Pointing to a paper by climate change denier Judith Curry, David Rose writes in the Mail on Sundaythat “The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover.” [3]
“The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend,” Rose writes. [3]
March 30, 2013
When the Committee on Climate Change claimed that David Rose had “misunderstood” the value of computer models, and refuted Rose's claim that “there has been no statistically significant increase for more than 16 years,” Rose countered that it was an “astonishing attack” and that his original reporting was “backed up by a scientifically researched graph.” Rose points to statements from climate change deniers Andrew Montford, and David Whitehouse of the GWPF for defense. [40]
The Committee on Climate Change reviewed Rose's claims, among which include the agreement between observed temperatures and model predictions, the so-called “pause” in temperature rise, and climate sensitivity. Below is a portion of their response: [41]
“We conclude that the approach to global and UK emissions reductions underpinning the Climate Change Act remains appropriate despite the assertions in the article. Nonetheless, as ever, it will continue to be important to monitor developments in climate science closely and draw out any policy implications.
Of the four scientists quoted in the Mail article, three (Myles Allen, James Annan and Piers Forster) have since publicly criticised it. The chart used appears to have been copied from the blog of a fifth climate scientist, Ed Hawkins, who has also taken issue with the article’s interpretation of it.
A chart of observed global temperatures against climate model outputs is the main evidence provided in the article. It claims that the chart “blows apart the scientific basis” for reducing emissions. This is simply incorrect, and reveals a misunderstanding of what the chart shows – a pattern of observed temperature over the last sixty years within the range of model outputs” [41]
He goes on to state that the IPCC“recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it.” [42]
Rose quotes Judith Curry, who said “The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.” [42]
He also goes on to quote climate change denier Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation who described the leaked IPCC report as a “staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance.” [42]
“EXPLODINGTHEMYTHSABOUTCLIMATECHANGE” MYTHThe world is continually getting warmer. TRUTH Official Met Office data shows no statistically significant global temperature rise since January 1997. The fact was confirmed last week by Raj Pachauri, chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Many scientists say this means forecasts of how much warmer the world will be by 2100 must be revised downwards. Pachauri disagreed: for him to be convinced, the ‘pause’ would have to last 30 years.
MYTHGlobal warming is already causing extreme weather. TRUTH If anything, weather has become less, not more extreme in the past 50 years. Professor Roger Pielke Jr of Colorado University – no climate sceptic – last week said that the past seven years had been the longest period ever recorded without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane hitting America, and that drought has decreased since the mid-20th Century. The IPCC admits there is no evidence that global warming has caused more storms in the tropics.
MYTH If we don’t take swift, drastic action to cut CO2 emissions, the world will soon become uninhabitable TRUTHThe ‘pause’ in rising temperatures, along with new research into the decline in the sun’s output and other natural factors, is leading many scientists to lower estimates of how fast carbon dioxide warms the world. Until now, the IPCC has suggested that doubling CO2 causes a worrying increase of 3.5C, but many experts say it is about 1.7C. The computer models still say the world will be at least 2C warmer by the end of the century, but they failed to predict the pause.
MYTHWe’ve got to do our bit, even if it hurts. If we cut emissions, the rest of the world will follow. TRUTHThe fiasco of the 2009 UN climate conference in Copenhagen proved that China, India, Brazil and other fast-growing nations are simply not prepared to make any binding commitments to reduce their emissions. However, by cutting our own ever more deeply, all we do is increase the already rocketing price of our energy and so drive jobs abroad – while making almost no difference to world CO2 levels.
MYTHThe faster we cut carbon in our power generation, the more prosperous we will be. TRUTHWe face declining energy capacity, while the Government targets on 2030 emissions would mean few firms will be willing to invest in the one proven type of power source – gas – that can fill the gap relatively cheaply. Instead of ‘green growth’, we face years of impoverished stagnation, while industry flees Britain and our sky-high energy prices.
MYTHThe Arctic is going to be ice-free in summer in a few years. TRUTHAlthough last summer saw a return to the relatively low levels of ice seen in 2007, the growth of Arctic winter ice this year is the fastest on record. Canadian archaeologists have been finding evidence the ice cover shrank to half its current extent during a warm period 7,000 years ago – but never vanished entirely.
October 13, 2012
David Rose wrote in the Mail on Sunday,that voicing the debunked myth that “The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago.” Rose claimed that new data proved a global warming “plateau” or “pause.” While Rose notes that Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia disagreed, he goes on to cite climate change denier Judith Curry for support. [44], [45]
CarbonBrief noted that there was a huge response following Rose's post, and went on to analyze a number of his claims. They note that Rose had also posted a followup, making “no acknowledgement of his previous mistakes.” The Met Office had responded to Rose's claim that the report had been released “without fanfare or publicity” by them: [46]
“…the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit,” The Met office's blog wrote. [46]
CarbonBrief notes that while Rose clarifies in his now article that the original graph did not come from the Met Office, he still describes his graph as a “a new official world temperature graph” despite being what CarbonBrief describes as “clearly a Mail on Sunday graphic.” [46]
Rose wrote a similar claim in an earlier September 28 article, where he said “The global warming ‘pause’ has now lasted for almost 17 years and shows no sign of ending – despite the unexplained failure of climate scientists’ computer models to predict it.” In that article, he also claimed that data direct form the MET Office “shows the lack of a warming trend.” [48]
October 30, 2011
David Rose featured an interview with climate change denier Judith Curry in his column at the Mail on Sunday. Rose discusses a study published by former climate change skeptic Richard Muller, who Curry goes on to accuse of misleading the public. She said that the affair had to be compared to the so-called “Climategate” scandal. [49]
Rose cites a graph from an upcoming report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) as evidence that “the [warming] trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.” [49]
“This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,” Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’ [49]
Affiliations
Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)— While Rose describes himself as a “Friend” of the GWPF, he does not appear to have an official position with the group. Rose has repeatedly cited GWPF reports and affiliated individuals in his column at the Mail on Sunday. [12]
The Mail on Sunday — Special Investigations Writer (2008 - Present). [1]
Lewis has also served in various governmental positions, working briefly as a policy analyst in the State Department during the Reagan administration. His position at the CEI, where disclosures show he is payed approximately $100,000-a-year, also allows him influence over elected officials. For example, he was given access to Congress when he was permitted to give a rebuttal to Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” to the assembly. Lewis was also allowed to present the supposed “dangers” of the Kyoto Protocol to Congress in 1998. [6], [7], [8], [9]
The following are summarized points from a presentation Lewis gave to train new interns at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) on why he believes that “climate change is not a 'crisis' or 'planetary emergency.'” [13]
“My thesis, then and now, is that climate change is not a 'crisis' or 'planetary emergency.' Here’s a quick overview:
'Worse than we thought' is a political mantra pretending to be a scientific finding. The state of the climate is better than they told us.
An unanticipated 17-year warming pause, the growing divergence between model predictions and observed warming, and a pile of recent studies indicate that 'consensus' science overestimates the key variable: climate sensitivity. Lower sensitivity means less warming and smaller impacts.
The scariest parts of the 'planetary emergency' narrative – dire warnings about ocean circulation shutdown triggering a new ice age, ice sheet disintegration raising sea levels up to 20 feet, malaria epidemics coming to a neighborhood near you, mass extinctions from runaway warming – are science fiction, not science.
The only card left in the alarmist deck is extreme weather. However, there has been no long term trend in the strength or frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, U.S. floods and drought.
Heat waves have become more frequent but, paradoxically, the more common hot weather becomes, the more heat-related mortality declines: People adapt!
There is no long-term trend in 'normalized' extreme weather damages (losses adjusted for increases in wealth, population, and the consumer price index).
Globally, mortality rates and aggregate mortality related to extreme weather have declined by 98% and 93%, respectively, since the 1920s.
The state of the world keeps improving as CO2 emissions increase.”
“There are several reasons why we shouldn’t worry about global warming. […] [T]he probability of catastrophic warming is low. Indeed, it is not clear global warming is something we should prevent, even if that were easy and cost little. Spending trillions to avoid better weather and a greener planet would make no sense at all.” [9]
“The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP) is an unlawful power grab that will increase consumer electricity prices, reduce U.S. job and economic growth, and have no discernible impacts on global warming or sea-level rise.
“To overturn the CPP, Trump should direct the Justice Department to side with the 28 states and numerous industry and nonprofit petitioners challenging the Plan as unlawful and unconstitutional, if the litigation reaches the Supreme Court.” [15]
“The election of Donald J. Trump to be the next president will soon enable congressional advocates of pro-growth energy policy to go on the offense for the first time in eight years—and they should, for the sake of our Constitution, among other things.” [16]
“The State of the Union speech? Yeesh. The energy and climate stuff was disingenuous and dumb.” [17]
“Cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, renewable energy mandates, and the like will accomplish little except to centralize power and transfer wealth from consumers to special interests.” [18]
“As energy analyst Alex Epstein puts it, fossil energy companies did not take a safe climate and make it dangerous, they took a dangerous climate and made it much safer.” [18]
November, 2014
According to Lewis, writing at the Cooler Heads Coalition blog, “The President should have approved the KXL long ago. The Keystone controversy is completely artificial — a fabrication of green politics.” [19]
July, 2014
Writing at the Cooler Heads Coalition's Blog, Lewis outlined portions of his “Las Vegas Slide Show” presentation at the Heartland Institute's 9th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9):
“A 'conservative' carbon tax is so loopy that at times I half believe it must be a passing fad, a bad joke, or a piece of blackboard econometric foppery rather than a grimly-determined political agenda,” Lewis wrote. [20]
“[M]ercury emissions from power plants do not poison anyone’s air. […] The case is somewhat similar for arsenic. […] More importantly, carbon dioxide (CO2), the substance targeted by EPA’s Clean Power Plan, is non-toxic to humans and animals at multiple times today’s atmospheric concentration […]” [21]
“Despite climategate, the death of cap-and-trade, the 17-year warming pause, the epic failure of climate models, and the growing popularity of skeptic blogs, Hockey Stick inventor Michael Mann still tries to pull rank and tell policymakers what to do because, after all, he and his 'colleagues' in the climate alarm movement are 'scientists.' […]
I will let others with the relevant expertise debate whether Prof. Mann is a competent paleo-climatologist. His writings on the Keystone XL pipeline are indistinguishable from those of a political hack.” [22]
“Divorced from analysis of carbon’s social benefits, SCC [Social Cost of Carbon] estimation even at its theoretical best is partisan advocacy posing as objective research.” [23]
“The big attraction of carbon taxes these days is not as a global warming policy but as a revenue enhancer.” [25]
January 1, 2009
In an interview, Lewis outlines what he believes would be negative impacts of California's greenhouse gas reduction law (A.B. 32). See video at [0:34]:
“I predict that if we implemented AB32 over the next several years, as the increased energy costs kick in, you will begin to see job flight and capital flight from California.” [26]
May 2, 2008
Lewis told Fox News that the idea of ExxonMobil and the Rockerfeller family moving investment to more green fuels was “ridiculous”:
“This idea that renewable fuels or alternative energy is the wave of the future is ridiculous,” he said in the interview. [27]
July, 2007
Marlo Lewis was featured on a “Debate” at Fox News opposing David Roberts. Video below:
“The big question here is whether our children and our grandchildren will inherit a world that is energy rich, or energy poor,” Lewis said. “And if we put people like Al Gore in charge, and especially if we put Robert Kennedy in charge, this world is going to be put on an energy diet when much of the world is already energy starved.” [28]
June, 1998
Marlo Lewis delivered a June, 1998 testimony to the Committee on Small Business where he opposed the Kyoto Protocol:
“There is no a priori reason to assume that global warming, on net, would be harmful rather than beneficial,” Lewis stated. “Millions of America’s senior citizens adapt to climate change every decade – when they move from the Snow Belt to the Sun Belt.” [29]
“Yet precisely because carbon dioxide emissions may linger in the atmosphere for a century or longer, it makes no practical difference in the long run whether carbon withdrawal policies are implemented now or a decade or more from now.” [29]
“The road to Hell, we all realize, is often paved with good intentions. The global warming debate illustrates that maxim very well; even a baby step on this destructive path should be avoided.” [29]
Key Deeds
April 20, 2018
Lewis wrote an article before Earth Day titled “The Blessing of fossil fuels.” “Anthropogenic global warming is real. However, that doesn’t mean the planet, and more important the people who inhabit it, are in peril,” Lewis wrote at The Times and Democrat. [68]
According to Lewis, climate change isn't as bad as we thought: [68]
“The warming rate is gradual and fairly constant, not rapid and accelerating, as it’s often claimed. Climate change is not 'worse than we thought,' it’s better than they told us,” he wrote. [68]
Lewis cites fossil fuel proponent Alex Epstein to argue for more fossil fuel use: [68]
“As fossil fuel consumption increased, the environment became more livable and human civilization more sustainable. That’s not a coincidence. Energy scholar Alex Epstein explains: human beings using fossil fuels did not take a safe climate and make it dangerous; they took a dangerous climate and made it safer.” [68]
Lewis concluded:
“Thanks in no small part to fossil fuels, the world today is healthier, wealthier and safer than ever before in history. And there’s no evidence the economic and social progress is about to stop.
Unfortunately, most Earth Day protesters won’t see it this way — even though the results are right in front of them.” 68]
DeSmog reported on Lewis's talk, which was titled “Standing for Accuracy About Global Warming.” After Lewis argued that Obama’s Clean Power Plan and the signing of the Paris Agreement were equivalent to a “burning of the constitution,” he outlined the three main points of his presentation: [31]
“One is that however strong the scientific case may have appeared at one time for alarm about global warming, there’s really nothing to it.”
“Another key point that all of these folks forget about is that fossil fuels have actually done more to make our climate a livable system than any other force on this planet. If it weren’t for fossil fuels our lives would all be nasty, brutal, and short.”
“My final point is that all of these emission reduction policies, which they claim are necessary to save the world, are one of two things. They’re either all pain for no gain, in other words, they’re a highly costly exercise in symbolism, or they’re a cure that’s worse than the alleged disease. They are a humanitarian disaster in the making.”
Lewis then ran through a PowerPoint presentation “disproving” climate science.
“The other thing is if this were really the terrible crisis that we can’t adapt to that they say, then the population shifts in the United States should have all been moving in the other direction, which is what my next slide shows. It shows that the states that are warmest are the states that have had the most rapid population growth over the last fifty years. People are voting with their feet by the millions to embrace and endure more climate warming in a short space of time than even these outlandish models predict will happen in a century. If you move from Albany to Florida or to Texas, the climate is really going to change for you.”
February 25, 2016
Marlo Lewis authored a “policy paper” (PDF) document claiming that the Paris Agreement is a treaty as opposed to an executive agreement. As a treaty, Lewis argues that it would be “would be dead on arrival” in the senate. [32], [33]
“Far from being toothless, the Paris Agreement is the framework for a multi-decade global campaign of political pressure directed chiefly against Republican leaders, Red State voters, and the fossil fuel industry,” Lewis warns. “To safeguard America’s economic future and capacity for self-government, congressional leaders must expose Obama’s climate diplomacy as an attempted end-run around the Constitution’s treaty-making process.” [32]
Marlo Lewis took part in a media conference call where he advocated for the rollback of 2014 renewable fuel standard (RFS) targets. Others Lewis said were on the call included: [39]
Kristin Sundell — Director of Policy and Campaigns, Action Aid.
Former Senator Wayne Allard — VP for Government Relations, American Motorcycle Association.
Nicole Wood — Program Manager, Government Affairs, Boat U.S.
Ben Schreiber — Climate and Energy Program Director, Friends of the Earth.
Emily Cassidy — Biofuels Research Analyst, Environmental Working Group.
Lewis was also on a Q&A Panel with Ken Haapala and David Kreutzer:
November 7, 2013
Marlo Lewis testified at a public listening session at the EPA's headquarters in Washington D.C. where he emphasized that coal power plants should not be shut down: [41]
“Don’t use the guidelines either to shut down existing coal plants, or to enact a national clean energy standard through the regulatory back door,” Lewis said in a summary of his comments. He added that the EPA needed to be careful that “guidelines for reducing CO2 emissions from existing power plants do not adversely affect the economic viability of existing coal power plants.” [41]
November 5, 2013
Marlo Lewis, Jr. outlines a global warming presentation that he gives to new interns at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), teaching them the reasons why he believes that “climate change is not a 'crisis' or 'planetary emergency.'” [13]
In is presentation, titled “Climate Change: Be Not Afraid!” (PDF), Lewis cites the debunked “global warming pause,” says there is no link between extreme weather and climate change, and suggests that “The state of the world keeps improving as CO2 emissions increase.” [42]
“A win for Keystone XL is a defeat for the global warming movement. Green groups view Keystone as an opportunity to regain momentum and offset their losses after the death of cap-and-trade. If friends of affordable energy win this fight, which seems likely, the greenhouse lobby will take another hit to its prestige, morale, and influence.
Keystone XL strains relations between Obama and his environmentalist base. If Obama approves the pipeline, greenies will be less motivated to work for his re-election. If he disapproves, Republicans and moderate Democrats will hammer him for killing job creation and increasing pain at the pump. Either way, the prospects for new anti-energy legislation should be dimmer.
Keystone XL is bringing aging, New Lefties out of the woodwork, where they can misbehave and get themselves arrested.”
August 10, 2011
When he made a trip to Canada to view the existing Keystone pipeline. Lewis documented his trip in a post at the Cooler Heads Coalition website in a post titled “My Excellent Journey to Canada’s Oil Sands.” [43]
Marlo Lewis appeared on CNNto debate global warming policy with Kert Davies from Greenpeace. Video and partial transcript below. [46]
Commentator: “Is it the case that you don't believe in global warming at all, or do you consider it merely to be global alarmism?”
Marlo Lewis: “I do believe there is global warming, although global warming has slowed down over the last decade, which I think is interesting because none of the climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to forecast global warming over the 21st century anticipated a roughly 10 year period with no net global warming. Which suggest that those models may be too sensitive or too hot.”
C: “If it's slowed, by which mechanism are you using to evaluate that?”
ML: “The Hadley data and the data which is land-surface data mostly. And also the Alabama-Huntsville satellite data. So two datasets confirm that basically there's basically been no net warming since 2001. And or none since 1998 if you want to include a year with a very big El Nino.
C: “Ok, now Kert Davis From Greenpeace, I expect you're going to disagree with that. Do you believe that global warming has stagnated or almost slowed since 2001?
Kurt Davies: “No. Marlo, people living in the real world see global warming every day and in fact what the science is telling us is that it's worse than we thought. All of the modelling projects exactly what we're seeing. That is, extremes in weather, extremes heat waves like we're seeing in the winter in California, loss of snow cover, the protracted drought in the southeast in the United States. And all around the world—extreme typhoons, hurricanes—things are getting worse, not better.
It's also a misnomer to look at just warming. In fact, the warming is worse at the poles. We're watching the icecaps break apart, polar bears are being left without ice to walk and feed and live on. And this is affecting people in their lives. Farmers are not planting crops in California this year. That means the food supply is threatened. In fact, what the IPCC found was that poor people around the world are going to be affected first and worst by global warming. That means their lives are at risk. It's a dangerous distraction to say that global warming does not affect people or is not as bad as we think it is.”
C: “Kert Davies, so presumably then you're not going for Marlo Lewis's assertion about the kind of data that he follows and recommends.”
KD: “Marlo Lewis is not a scientist. He comes from a think tank that also worked for the tobacco industry to deny that smoking causes damage. He took money from Exxon for over a decade—two million dollars plus—even Exxon dropped Competitive Enterprise Institute from its funding ranks because they were out of touch with reality.” [46]
2009
Marlo Lewis was one of the “experts” to appear in a video funded by the Cascade Policy Institute titled “Climate Chains.” Cascade describes the video as “22-minute documentary that exposes extreme environmentalism and the misguided pursuit of cap-and-trade legislation. Climate Chains not only explains the dangers of this legislation but offers an alternative to top-down regulation in the form of free market environmentalism.” [47]
Marlo Lewis testified before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (PDF), arguing against fuel economy standards. Some notable quotes below. [49]
“The new mpg standards enacted in December 2007 will do nothing to measurably cool the atmosphere.”
“Global warming policies can adversely affect human health and life expectancy.”
[…] Please note, I am not saying that global warming is a myth or that there are no health, environment, and safety risks associated with climate change. What I am saying is that there are also risks associated with global warming policy.”
“The global warming debate suffers from a profound lack of balance. Proponents of carbon suppression policies spotlight, trumpet, and even exaggerate the risks of climate change but ignore or deny the risks of climate change policy.
This one-sided perspective dominates recent attempts to link global warming to national security concerns. The remotest possibility of abrupt climate change is seized upon as a rationale for policies with enormous potential to harm people, the economy, and, indeed, national security. This hearing will have served a valuable purpose if it begins to redress the balance.”
Marlo Lewis appeared on CNBCwhere he discussed his “Skeptic's Guide” to An Inconvenient Truth” and Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize.[51]
“A preponderance of scientists do believe that the recent warming, the warming of the past 30 years, is largely the result of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” Lewis admitted. “I would say that most scientists, though, understand—even if they don't publicly say—that there isn't a whole lot we can do about it.”
Lewis also appeared on CNN to further discuss why he believes that Al Gore does not deserve the Peace Prize: [52]
“An Inconvenient Truth is basically a lawyer's brief for a political agenda. It's completely one-sided. Gore only mentioned or cites studies that support his point of view, then he exaggerates in many cases the evidence that he presents, ” Lewis said. “He is presenting global warming as a planetary emergency […] and that is simply not based on science.”
“Jonah Goldberg, the columnist, notes that the earth warned about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century while global GDP increased by some 1800 percent.
For the sake of argument, says Goldberg, lets agree that all of the warming was anthropogenic; the result of economic activity. And let's further stipulate that the warming produced no benefits, only harms. That's still an amazing bargain, Goldberg remarks.
Average life expectancies doubled in the 20th century. The human population nearly quadrupled, yet per-capita food supplies increased. Literacy, medicine, measure, and even in many respects the environment improved, at least in the prosperous west.
This suggests a thought experiment. Suppose you had the power to travel and time and impose carbon caps on previous generations. How much growth would you be willing to sacrifice to avoid how many tenths of a degree of warming? Would humanity be better off today if the twentieth century had half as much warming, but also a half or a third, or even a quarter less growth? I doubt anyone on this committee would say yes.
A poorer planet would also be a hungrier, sicker planet. Many of us might not even be alive. How much future growth are you willing to sacrifice to mitigate global warming? That is not an idle question.”
[…] “Regulatory climate strategies put the policy cart before the technology horse.” [53]
August 15, 2007
Marlo Lewis appeared on NBC News In-Depth to talk about climate change. [54]
Discussing funding from the oil industry including companies like ExxonMobil which funded the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Lewis said:
“We don't take that position because they invest. It's the other way around. And any environmental group that is honest and has any familiarity with us knows that to be the case.”
May 2, 2007
Marlo Lewis appeared appeared on Glenn Beck's special “Exposed: The Climate of Fear,” a program that contended climate change was not a man-made ecological crisis. [55]
Along with the paper, Lewis also released “A Skeptic's Primer” on the film, and a so-called“guide” to supposed “Distortions, Misleading Statements, Exaggerations, and Errors” in the film.[57], [58]
For example, Marlo Lewis claims that Gore failed to note the “environmental, health, and economic benefits of climatic warmth and the ongoing rise in the air’s carbon dioxide (CO2) content,” a common myth among climate change skeptics. [58]
January 26, 2003
Marlo Lewis co-wrote a letter to President Bush with Fred Smith, discouraging Bush from supporting the McCain-Lieberman bill that would have regulated carbon dioxide emissions. Signatories represented a range of climate change denial think tanks and conservative foundations: [59]
Fred L. Smith — Jr., President, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Marlo Lewis, Jr. — Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Benjamin C. Works — Executive Director, Strategic Issues Research Institute
October 2, 2002
Lewis co-wrote an open letter with Fred L. Smith, Jr. to President Bush opposing GHG reduction credit. The letter expresses concern “that the Administration’s plan to award regulatory credits for 'voluntary' greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions will strengthen pro-Kyoto forces here at home – interests adverse to your supply-side economic and energy policies.” [64]
July 1, 2002
Lewis gave a speech titled“Precautionary Foolishness,” where he attempts to “challenge the pro-Kyoto coalition's strongest argument in favor of an international climate treaty. This is the argument that, ‘if we do it smart,”’ Kyoto will provide low-cost planet insurance for present and future generations.” [66]
Lewis said that “the Precautionary Principle is incoherent, an ethical empty suit.“ [66]
“[D]o we have more to fear from Kyoto than from global warming itself? The purpose of the Precautionary Principle is to sweep such questions under the rug,” he said. [66]
On the subject of global warming, Lewis suggests that we have little to fear and goes on to discuss the science and he sees it: [66]
“A variety of empirical evidence suggests we have little or nothing to fear,“ Lewis begins. “[M]uch of this century's modest warming may be due to natural causes such as changes in solar energy output. Second, since the models overestimate the warming of the past 100 years, they likely also overestimate the warming of the next hundred years. [66]
“From such facts, we may conclude that the climate system is probably less “sensitive” to ‘greenhouse forcing’ than the climate models assume.” [66]
When it comes to extreme weather events, he defers to fellow climate change deniers for evidence of a lack of connection: [66]
“What about extreme weather events, melting ice sheets, and the spread of tropical diseases? Here I would simply refer you to the work of hurricane scientists like Chris Landsea and William Gray, glaciologists like Howard Conway, and infectious disease experts like Paul Reiter. During the past fifty years, the period of the most rapid increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes have declined.” [66]
June 5, 2002
Writing on behalf of the CEI, Lewis urged President Bush to reconsider his proposal on Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, established under section 1605(b) of the 1992 Energy Policy Act: [65]
“A crediting program would energize and expand the “greenhouse lobby” – the coalition of politicians, advocacy groups, and companies supporting the Kyoto Protocol and kindred energy rationing policies,” Lewis said. [65]
September 25, 2002
Marlo Lewis co-authored an open letter with Myron Ebell to select senators, attempting to convince them to oppose the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which they describe as “a regressive and coercive policy.” [60]
July 29, 1998
Marlo Lewis testified on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to the House Small Business Committee on “Why Kyoto Is Not an Insurance Policy.” [9]
According to Lewis, “There are several reasons why we shouldn’t worry about global warming.” He adds “the probability of catastrophic warming is low. Indeed, it is not clear global warming is something we should prevent, even if that were easy and cost little. Spending trillions to avoid better weather and a greener planet would make no sense at all.” [9]
“In candid moments, Administration spokespersons will admit that the theory of catastrophic warming has not been validated by experimental or empirical evidence,” Lewis claimed. “They’ll concede that scientists know too little about the underlying physics, that computer models are too slow, and that the evidence is too conflicted, to permit a genuine resolution of the global warming debate. In other words, they’ll admit, at least privately, that the science supporting the Kyoto Protocol isn’t really clear, compelling, or ‘settled.’ But they don’t see this as a great liability. Indeed, in their view, our very ignorance about the extent of human influence on the climate system is reason enough to justify an enterprise like the Kyoto Protocol.” [9]
In another testimony document, dated June 1998, Lewis argues that there is “no a priori reason to assume that global warming, on net, would be harmful rather than beneficial.” [9]
House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade — Former Staff Consultant. [1]
State Department Bureau of Inter-American Affairs and Bureau of International Organization Affairs — Former Special Assistant. [1]
Claremont McKenna College — Former Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science. [1]
Publications
Marlo Lewis, Jr. has written for several publications including Tech Central Station (TCS), Washington Times, Investors Business Daily, the National Review and Interpretation, a journal of political philosophy.
“Marlo Lewis Debates Global Warming,” YouTube video uploaded by user Competitive Enterprise Institute, February 3, 2009. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
Ph. D., Political Science, University of Colorado (1994). [1]
M.A., Public Policy, University of Colorado (1992). [1]
B.A., Mathematics, University of Colorado (1990). [1]
Background
Roger Pielke Jr., is a climate science policy writer working at the University Colorado in Boulder. Pielke Jr.'s academic degrees are in mathematics, public policy, and political science.
According to his bibliographic notes, he started studying extreme weather and climate in 1991 at the at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO. He discusses his views on climate policy in the book The Climate Fix (Basic Books, 2011). [6]
While Pielke Jr. argues that he is not a climate change skeptic, and accepts that man-made climate change is a real problem, he has consistently opposed the idea that extreme weather events and climate change are connected. Pielke's father, Roger A. Pielke Sr., is also an outspoken critic of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pielke Jr. has described research showing the link between extreme weather and climate change as “zombie science.” [4], [5]
Joe Romm at ThinkProgress writes that “the websites that most prominently feature or reprint Pielke’s attacks are climate denial sites like WattsUpWithThat and ClimateDepot.”
Romm describes him as “probably the single most disputed and debunked person in the science blogosphere, especially on the subject of extreme weather and climate change.” Romm also notes that Roger Pielke Jr. was included on Foreign Policy's 2010 “Guide to Climate Skeptics” — something that Pielke informed FP that he strongly objected to. [7], [4]
The website SkepticalScience features a page devoted to “Climate Misinformer: Roger Pielke Jr” where they have published an array of refutations to Pielke's blog posts and arguments. [8]
“I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.”
“Is human-caused climate change real and/or significant? -
- Me: Yes it is
What policies make sense in response?
- Me: Read my book! [The Climate Fix]”
In his summary, Pielke says that extreme weather cannot be equated with climate change:
“Have disasters become more costly because of human-caused climate change? Only one answer to this question is strongly supported by the available data, the broad scientific literature and the assessments of the IPCC:
No.
There is exceedingly little evidence to support claims that disasters have become more costly because of human caused climate change.”
July, 2013
In testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, Pielke Jr. declared: [6]
“It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” [6]
However, in clarification, he adds that he does believe climate change is caused by man's activity: [6]
“Humans influence the climate system in profound ways, including through the emission of carbon dioxide via the combustion of fossil fuels […] It does mean however that some activists, politicians, journalists, corporate and government agency representatives and even scientists who should know better have made claims that are unsupportable based on evidence and research.”
“Global climate change is real, and developing alternative energy sources and reducing global carbon-dioxide emission is essential. But the claim that action to slow climate change is justified by the rising toll of natural disasters–and, by extension, that reducing emissions can help stanch these rising losses–is both scientifically and morally insupportable.”
“We cannot make a causal link between increase in greenhouse gases and the costs of damage associated with hurricanes, floods, and extreme weather phenomena.”
November, 2008
Co-writing with Christopher Green in the Rocky Mountain News, Pielke Jr. writes why he disagrees with cap-and-trade: [14]
“The Obama plan for climate policy involves one very good idea - investment in new technologies and infrastructure - and one very bad one: cap-and-trade.
To understand why cap-and-trade is a bad idea, we need only to look to lessons from Europe's experiences.”
“Efforts to slow global warming will have no discernible effect on hurricanes for the foreseeable future. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adequately preparing for future disasters are essentially separate problems.” [15]
“We risk bad policy when all choices before us are bad ones. For instance, the Kyoto protocol on climate change has its supporters and opponents, but very few are willing to admit that debate over its implementation has considerably more symbolic value than practical effect. The debate over the war on Iraq may have been similarly misguided as better policy options may have been ignored. In both cases, a commitment to pre-emption enables the politicization of intelligence, which then serves as a constraint on options that may be more effective but, for certain ideologues, politically less desirable.
Pre-emption hurts the policy process when it results in a dearth of choice.”
“Today we see a subset of scientists trying to use their science to affect political outcomes. The most obvious example is with the Kyoto protocol on global warming, where scientists are arrayed on both sides of the debate. What policy makers need from scientists is not support for or against the protocol, but practical alternatives to deal with climate change. The protocol is more a symbol than an proposal for a real solution.”
“Of course, it is quite reasonable to believe, as many climate scientists do, that the record of past temperature increased, combined with knowledge of atmospheric chemistry and physics, foretells a warmer future. But what such scientists do not, and cannot, know is this: what will be the impact of such warming on humans and the environment,and how will those impacts change if we limit emissions?”
According to the authors, “climate policy makers continue to focus on energy policy as the primary means to address future climate impacts. The approach is simply doomed to fail. Why has the idea of adaptation been so neglected in the political and scientific arenas?”
February 2, 2000
Writring in The Washington Times, Roger A. Pielke Jr. and co-author Daniel Sarewitz write: [19]
“Predictions of the future can be more dangerous than ignorance, if they induce us to behave in ways that reduce our resilience in the face of inevitable uncertainties and contingencies. When predictions are made about events decades or centuries hence, such as the level of the stock market or the conditions of a changing climate, it is simply impossible to verify their accuracy , no matter how impressive the supporting science may be.”
Key Deeds
March 29, 2017
Roger Pielke, Jr. was a witness in a house committee hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method” chaired by Lamar Smith. The hearing also featuring testimony from John Christy, Michael Mann, and Judith Curry. DeSmog reported that the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearings “have officially turned into theater to stage climate science denial,” noting that Michael Mann was the only witness on the committee to represent the 97% consensus view that humans cause climate change. [45],[46]
Officially, the hearing was organized to “examine the scientific method and process as it relates to climate change” and “focus on the underlying science that helps inform policy decisions.” [46]
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, a Democrat from Oregon, noted from the outset that “The witness panel does not really represent the vast majority of climate scientists.” For an accurate representation of the science, she said to “Visualize 96 more climate scientists that agree with the mainstream consensus. […] For a balanced panel we’d need 96 more Dr. Manns.” [45]
“There is little scientific basis in support of claims that extreme weather events, and specifically hurricanes, floods, drought, and tornadoes, and their economic damage, has increased in recent decades due to the emission of greenhouse gases.”
He later clarifies, in response to a question from Lamar Smith, that “ there’s no evidence to suggest that hurricanes, either in the U.S. or globally are increasing. And the same goes for floods, drought, and tornados.” He adds, “Why people would hang their hat on long-term trends in extreme weather is a puzzle.” [45]
Later in his testimony, Pielke said “You can fund billions and billions of dollars more climate research and the findings will be very much the same. There’s fundamental risks, the future is uncertain, and we have choices about whether and how we might want to mitigate those risks.” [45]
“Roger is pointing to outdated reports. Outdated data,” Mann said. “Three years ago, he actually posted the following on his blog: He said, ‘I am no longer conducting research or academic writing related to climate, I am not available for talks, and on the climate issue I have no interest in speaking with reporters,'” Mann pauses for effect, ”'or giving testimony before congress.' Well, that’s what he said back in 2015. That’s, you know, three years ago. There has been a lot of progress over the past three years. […].” [45]
Mann notes that we can now positively attribute, with a large degree of certainty, how much more large or severe an extreme weather event was likely made by climate change. [45]
”[…] I’ve come here representing the science that’s in the IPCC report. It’s almost a bizarro sort of reaction to be called fringe when you’re representing mainstream science,” he said. [45]
According to Pielke, journalists and academics have “joined the campaign against me” due to political interests. [10]
“I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.”
Pielke says that he earned the term “denier” after questioning an IPCC report graph. He adds, “I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases.” [10]
He emphasizes his point that “There is not a strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change,” noting that “The IPCC never acknowledged the snafu, but subsequent reports got the science right.” [10]
When Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee investigated Pielke for what he described as “serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change,” Piekle said that this significantly damaged his reputation and was why he decided to pursue other subjects than climate change. He concludes:
“Academics and the media in particular should support viewpoint diversity instead of serving as the handmaidens of political expediency by trying to exclude voices or damage reputations and careers. If academics and the media won’t support open debate, who will?” [10]
Pielke writes in the paper that its objective is to present a “straightforward approach to tracking international (and national) progress with respect to implementation of the Paris Agreement” and is designed for “observers who may not be insiders to better understand climate policy.” [21]
According to Pielke, in order to successfully reach emissions reductions targets, the world would have to “deploy about 190 x 1.5 gigawatt power plants worth of carbon-free energy every year from now until 2100.” [21]
“The proportion of global energy consumption from carbon-free sources provides a readily understandable and easily tracked metric with respect to progress in the implementation of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Today, that percentage is less than 14%. By the end of the century, it needs to be greater than 90% if the ultimate objective of the FCCC is to be achieved,” Pielke Jr. writes. [21]
November 29, 2015
Roger Pielke Jr. gave a keynote lecture to the VWN– de Vereniging voor Wetenschapsjournalistiek en -communicatie, the Dutch Association of Science Journalists. According to the PDF version of his talk, Pielke covered extreme weather events, mentioning a study he co-wrote in 1998 with Chirs Landsea. He criticizes the IPCC for reliance on “one study” on extreme weather in 2007 while establishing a link between extreme weather and global warming. The later portions of his talk are devoted to his label as “climate change denialist” and equates this with having lost his job. [22]
In summary, Pielke says that extreme weather cannot be equated with climate change:
“Have disasters become more costly because of human-caused climate change? Only one answer to this question is strongly supported by the available data, the broad scientific literature and the assessments of the IPCC:
No.
There is exceedingly little evidence to support claims that disasters have become more costly because of human caused climate change.”
In his letter to University of Colorado President Bruce Benson, Grijalva requested that the university disclose all of Pielke's sources for external funding. The letter points out controversy of climate research by Dr. Willie Soon, and notes that his lack of disclosure “may not be isolated incidents.” [25]
“Prof . Roger Pielke, Jr., at CU's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research has testified numerous times before the U.S . Congress' on climate change and its economic impacts,” Grijalva writes in the letter. “His July 2013 Senate testimony featured the claim , often repeated, that it is 'incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.' John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change and his (Holdren's) position on the issue.”
[…] “I am hopeful that disclosure of a few key pieces of information will establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations published in your institution 's name and assist me and my colleagues in making better law.”
“When you read that the cost of disasters is increasing, it’s tempting to think that it must be because more storms are happening. They’re not. All the apocalyptic 'climate porn' in your Facebook feed is solely a function of perception. In reality, the numbers reflect more damage from catastrophes because the world is getting wealthier. We’re seeing ever-larger losses simply because we have more to lose — when an earthquake or flood occurs, more stuff gets damaged. And no matter what President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron say, recent costly disasters are not part of a trend driven by climate change. The data available so far strongly shows they’re just evidence of human vulnerability in the face of periodic extremes,” Pielke Jr. writes.
Top climatologists responded to Pielke's article, concluding that Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight had “used flawed data to make its conclusions,” reported ThinkProgress. [26]
“Pielke’s piece is deeply misleading, confirming some of my worst fears that Nate Silver’s new venture may become yet another outlet for misinformation when it comes to the issue of human-caused climate change,” said Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. “Pielke uses a very misleading normalization procedure that likely serves to remove the very climate change-related damage signal that he claims to not be able to find.”
Two climate scientists, Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth, later said the Pielke Jr. had sent them emails threatening possible legal action in response to their criticism of his findings, reported Huffington Post. Pielke responded that it was “ridiculous” to characterize his emails as threats against Michael Mann, however apologized to both scientists. [27]
In an email to Huffington Post, Mann said Pielke sent him “a threatening email in response to my fair criticism of his piece.” Mann added that a representative from FiveThirtyEight later contacted him and offered “an apology for what they characterized as unacceptable behavior by Pielke.” [27]
Trenberth said that he considered the email he received from Pielke as “a threat to me,” telling Huffington Post “He was very accusatory and threatened me if I did not respond.” Trenberth forwarded some of the email's text to Huffington Post: [27]
“Once again, I am formally asking you for a public correction and apology,” Pielke wrote to Trenberth. “If that is not forthcoming I will be pursuing this further. More generally, in the future how about we agree to disagree over scientific topics like gentlemen?” [27]
The Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters also has natural disaster cost estimates ranging back to the year 1900. Skeptical Science notes that “Pielke has dismissed climate change as a causal factor using data from just 1990,” pointing out the irony in that Pielke himself had criticized Munich Re for using data only going back to 1980: [31]
“Thirty years is not an appropriate length of time for a climate analysis, much less finding causal factors like climate change,” Pielke Jr. said.
SkepticalScience found that the positive trend in global disaster losses in the Munich Re data was almost 30 percent larger for 1980–2013 than was for 1990–2013. “What's more, the trend in disaster losses for 1980–2013 is statistically significant at the 99 percent confidence level, whereas the trend for the 1990–2013 window cherry picked by Pielke is not statistically significant,” they wrote. [29]
Pielke Jr. wrote a follow post at FiveThirtyEight, noting that “Human-caused climate change is both real and important, so being careful about what claims science can support and which it can’t is imperative.” According to SkepticalScience , Pielke “dug himself even deeper into a hole by claiming that efforts and technologies to mitigate disaster damages don't make a difference in damage trends 'for floods, U.S. hurricanes or tornadoes.' The problem is that those referenced papers he links don't support his claims. ” [32], [29]
Pielke told journalist Keith Kloor that as of June 2014, he was no longer writing for the outlet “after 538 showed some reluctance in continuing to publish my work.”
July 18, 2013
Roger Pielke Jr. testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works at a hearing on climate change. In his full testimony (PDF), reprinted by the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), Pielke declares, as some “take-home points” that: [6]
“It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” [6]
According to Pielke Jr., other “take-home points” include that weather-related losses have not increased since 1990, hurricanes have not increased in intensity since 1900, floods have not increased since 1950, tornadoes have not increased since 1950, and drought has become shorter and less frequent over the last century. [6]
In clarification, he adds that he does believe climate change is caused by man's activity: [6]
“Humans influence the climate system in profound ways, including through the emission of carbon dioxide via the combustion of fossil fuels […] It does mean however that some activists, politicians, journalists, corporate and government agency representatives and even scientists who should know better have made claims that are unsupportable based on evidence and research.” [6]
Writing about the testimony on his blog, Pielke Jr. says that he is “declaring victory in this debate” while any future claims associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change would be “Zombie science.” [5]
Holdren noted that Senator Jeff Sessions had quoted both Roger Pielke Jr. and Roy Spencer in February 2014 testimony, to which Holdren had replied that “the indicated comments by Dr. Pielke, and similar ones attributed by Senator Sessions to Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, were not representative of mainstream views on this topic in the climate-science community.” Holdren said his comments were following through on his promise to “record a more complete response with relevant scientific references.” [37]
ThinkProgress also outlined an interchange between Pielke and Holdren on Twitter that happened in December of 2014. Pielke had criticized Holdren for staying “safe” on climate:
“Since becoming sci advisor Holdren has always stayed on safe (boring) ground in his public remarks,” Pielke Tweeted. [38]
In February, after Holdren made statements suggesting climate change was worsening Western droughts, Pielke responded in another Tweet, saying “it is brazen for zombie science to show up in the White House!” [39]
After receiving Holdren's six-page response, Pielke Jr. criticized him on his blog in a post titled “John Holdren's Epic Fail”: [40]
“In a nutshell, Holdren's response is sloppy and reflects extremely poorly on him. Far from showing that I am outside the scientific mainstream, Holdren's follow-up casts doubt on whether he has even read my Senate testimony,” Pielke claims. He concludes that Holdren “has gone too far” by supposedly attempting to “delegitimize a colleague.”
October, 2010
Roger Pielke Jr. is the author of The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming. The book, according to one review, “wants everyone to take a giant step backward and restart the entire conversation” on climate change science. While “Pielke agrees with the rest of his field on the need to stop emitting carbon dioxide and to stabilize its concentration in the atmosphere at somewhere between 350 and 500 parts per million; he just doesn’t want scientists to tell the rest of us how to get there.” He instead focuses on the uncertainties of climate science and the politicization of the debate. [41]
He presented his book as part of a “Sustainability Series” (PDF) with Arizona State University's Global Institute of Sustainability and the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes. The event description read as follows: [42]
“Conventional wisdom on how to deal with climate change has failed us, according to Roger Pielke, and it’s time to change course. Using an arithmetic and logical explanation, Pielke explores the problem and practical ways of meeting growing energy demands. In this thought-provoking discussion of the interaction between science and politics, Pielke proposes a means for digging ourselves out of this climate change mess we’ve created.”
July, 2000
Writing in The Atlantic Monthly with co-author Daniel Sarewitz, Roger Pielke Jr. and Sarewitz claim that the recent Hurricane Mitch may have been a “public relations gift to environmentalists” and claim that “disasters like Mitch are a present and historical reality, and they will become more common and more deadly regardless of global warming.” [43]
Discussing modern environmentalists, the authors claim they are “in the habit of calling on science to help advance their agenda.” They say that, in light of global warming, the call to reduce carbon dioxide emissions was “used to rationalize the moral imperative, unify the environmentalist agenda, and determine the political solution.” [43]
The authors go on to criticize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) reliance on climate models. “Although various models can reproduce past temperature records, and yield similar predictions of future temperatures, they are unable to replicate other observed aspects of climate.” The authors write that “it is simply not possible to know far in advance if the models agree on future temperature because they are similarly right or similarly wrong.” [43]
Talking about sea level rise, authors say that while “Sea-level rise is a problem […] anthropogenic global warming is not the only culprit, and reducing emissions cannot be the only solution.” They add that “Predicting the impact on climate of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is so uncertain as to be meaningless.” [43]
Authors also put an emphasis on adaptation to climate change, which they say has been “taboo in many circles.” [43]
“Reframing the climate problem could mobilize this constituency [those subject to the effects of the weather] and revitalize the Framework Convention. The revitalization could concentrate on coordinating disaster relief, debt relief, and development assistance, and on generating and providing information on climate that participating countries could use in order to reduce the vulnerability.”
Pielke Jr. and Sarewitz claim that, while “[E]fforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions need not be abandoned […] An opportunity to advance the cause of adaptation is on the horizon.” They contend that the United nation's Frameworkk Convention on Climate Chnage should instead focus on “promoting the diffusion of energy-efficient technologies that would reduce emissions” and that this should be “promoted independently” from emissions regulations. [43]
February 2, 2000
Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz co-wrote an article in The Washington Times titled “Anyone for global warming?” In the article, the authors warn that “predictions of the future can be more dangerous than ignorance […]” [19]
“Understanding the strengths and limits of predictions is important because our sense of certainty about events in the future influences the actions we take today,” Pielke Jr. and Sarewitz write. “For example, predictions of global warming have focused international environmental efforts on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But future economic trends, geopolitical events, and technological advances — three variables that defy predictive accuracy — will have a much greater impact on emissions than any conceivable international agreements.”
Affiliations
A complete list of Roger A. Pielke Jr. affiliations can be found on his CV on file at CIRES. Below are some notable examples: [1]
Professional Affiliations
Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES) — Professor (2004 to present), Fellow (2001 to present). [1]
The Breakthrough Institute — Senior Fellow (2008 to present), former Advisory Board Member (2008 to 2016). [1]
Risk Frontiers, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia — Research Fellow (2011 to present). [1]
Mackinder Institute, London School of Economics, London, UK— Visiting Fellow (2010 to 2012). [1]
Oxford University, Said Business School, Oxford Institute for Science, Innovation and Society — Associate Fellow (2007), Associate Fellow (2008 to 2009). [1]
Arizona State University, Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes — Affiliated Scholar (2004 to 2009). [1]
Institute for the Study of Society and Environment, National Center for Atmospheric Research — Affiliate Scientist (2004 to 2007). [1]
University of Colorado, Environmental Studies Program — Director of Graduate Studies (2002 to 2004). [1]
Columbia University, Center for Science, Policy and Outcomes — Academic Advisory Board (1998 to 2004), Adjunct Scientist (1998 to 2001). [1]
University of Illinois, Illinois State Water Survey — Adjunct Scientist (1998 to 2001). [1]
University of Colorado, Department of Political Science — Affiliate Professor (1997 to 2000). [1]
Roger Pielke Jr. lists all of his publications, as of December 2016, on his website. Some that he lists under the category “Energy and Climate” include:
“ROGERPIELKE, JR.” Center for Science & Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado Boulder. Archived December 22, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/lzU0O
Roger Pielke Jr. and D. Sarewitz, “Managing the next disaster” (PDF), Los Angeles Times, September 23, 2005. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
Roger A. Pielke Jr. “Speakout: Pre-emptive politics ignore science” (PDF),Rocky Mountain News, August 18, 2003. Retrieved from Centre for Science & Policy Research at the University of Colorado. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
Roger A. Pielke JR. “When Science Gets Political,” Newsday.com, February 23, 2003. Retrieved from Centre for Science & Policy Research at the University of Colorado. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke JR. “Climate Changes; Society Has To Learn To Adapt,” The Albuquerque Journal, August 5, 2001. Retrieved from Centre for Science & Policy Research at the University of Colorado. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
“Roger A. Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz. “Anyone for global warming?” The Washington Times, February 2, 2000. Retrieved from Centre for Science & Policy Research at the University of Colorado. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke Jr. “Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock” (PDF), The Atlantic Monthly, July 2000. Retrieved from Centre for Science & Policy Research at the University of Colorado. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
While Attorney General, Pruitt established the “first federalism unit to combat unwarranted regulation and overreach by the federal government.” Pruitt's profile at The Federalist Society, where he is listed as an expert, notes that Pruitt has been described as “one of the Obama administration’s most tenacious tormentors.” He has been a “advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda, and he is leading the charge against the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan and 'Waters of the U.S.' rules for their unlawful attempt to displace state sovereignty in the environmental regulatory context.” [3], [4]
According to data from Followthemoney.org, Pruitt has collected at least $345,246 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry since 2002. E&E News writes that Pruitt raised $282,111 from oil and gas interests over four state campaigns. Only lawyers and lobbyists gave more, at $298,717. [5], [6]
Pruitt was the subject of a 2014 New York Times investigation titled ”Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance With Attorneys General” which described “the unprecedented, secretive alliance that Mr. Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general have formed with some of the nation's top energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory agenda.” [7]
Scott Pruitt has a history of opposing to the EPA. In 2011, after the Obama administration issued Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in order to reduce mercury emissions, Pruitt responded by issuing a number of lawsuits, including one that is ongoing. Pruitt has sued the EPA at least 14 times, including many cases which oppose emissions reductions under the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan. “In all but one of these 14 cases, regulated industry players also were parties. And these companies or trade associations in 13 of these cases were also financial contributors to Mr. Pruitt's political causes,” The New York Times reported. [49], [22]
Controversies & Ethics Questions
In late March 2018, ABC News first reported that Pruitt had stayed in a condo owned by the wife of top energy lobbyist Steve Hart during much of his first year in Washington. A Bloomberg report said Pruitt paid $50 a night for a single bedroom, but for only the nights he slept there. The White House proceeded to launch a formal inquiry into Pruitt's living arrangement, which could present an ethics issue for Pruitt. [115], [116], [123]
Steve Hart's lobbying firm, Williams and Jensen, has lobbied on issues including the “the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG), approval of LNG exports and export facilities.” [115]
Cheniere Energy Inc., the only active liquid natural gas export plant in the US at the time, gave Hart's form $80,000 in 2017. LNG exports were on the agenda for Pruitt's December 2017 trip to Morocco. According to the EPA press release, Pruitt promoted “the potential benefit of liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports on Morocco’s economy.” [115], [117]
A subsequent internal ethics investigation endorsed the living agreement, however outside ethics experts told ABC News that the rushed ruling was problematic: [118]
“This ethics opinion is highly unusual and problematic in many respects,” said Noah Bookbinder, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
“It is not regular practice, and not okay, for a situation that presents the clear possibility of a conflict of interest to be evaluated and approved by an ethics officer after the fact when the story comes out publicly, rather than beforehand,” Bookbinder said. “Second, on the substance, there are many problems with the logic of the opinion.”
While Pruitt has said that J. Steven Hart had no lobbying business with the EPA, The New York Times reported that the EPA had approved a pipeline expansion plan for a Canadian energy company represented by Hart's lobbying firm at the same time that Pruitt was renting the condominium. Both the EPA and Hart's lobbying firm denied any connection between the condo rental and the action: [124]
“Any attempt to draw that link is patently false,” Liz Bowman, a spokeswoman for Mr. Pruitt, said in a written statement.
Pruitt has faced a number of other controversies. For example, The Washington Post reported that Pruitt knew of and approved of a plan to grant large raises to two of his aides, while Pruitt later said in aFox News interview he had only found out about the raises the day before and conceded the raises “should not have happened.” The Atlantic reported Pruitt bypassed the White House, which declined the raises, and had gone through an obscure provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act to pay for the wage increases. [119], [120], [121]
“It’s a complete coincidence that Pruitt went behind the White House’s back and used this in the most unethical way possible, just as the [inspector general] starts asking questions,” one EPA staffer told The Atlantic. “Now they just have to connect the dots.” [122]
Pruitt's travel and office expenditures have also faced scrutiny. News sources including The New York Timeshave reported that staffers who questioned Pruitt's spending were reassigned, demoted, or requested new jobs after they raised concerns. [125]
Sought a $100,000-per-month charter aircraft membership, whichThe New York Times wrote would allow him to “take unlimited private jet trips for official business.” The membership was not purchased. [125]
A bulletproof SUV with run-flat tires that would allow it to continue driving after sustaining gunfire (not purchased). [126]
A 24-hour security detail that followed him on personal trips including Disneyland and the Rose Bowl. The security detail's salaries could cost at least $2 million per year, CNN reported. [129]
After the controversies, President Trump voiced support for Pruitt, saying he is doing a “great job,” and “under seige,” Politico reported. [130]
“Do you believe that the Fake News Media is pushing hard on a story that I am going to replace A.G. Jeff Sessions with EPA Chief Scott Pruitt, who is doing a great job but is TOTALLY under siege?” the president wrote. “Do people really believe this stuff? So much of the media is dishonest and corrupt!”
An April 18, 2018 press release from the U.S. House of Representatives reported that the investigations into Pruitt's spending was growing substantially, including investigations from The House of Representatives, Senate, White House, Office of Management and Budge, Government Accountability Office, and the EPA Inspector General. [137]
In 2015, Pruitt, as Oklahoma's AG, filed suit against the EPA over the Clean Power Plan, the regulation that would curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Assisting Pruitt were attorneys from BakerHostetler, one of the nation’s largest law firms.
“It’s a safe assumption that Pruitt could be the most hostile E.P.A. administrator toward clean air and safe drinking water in history,” Ken Cook, head of the Environmental Working Group, told the New York Times in December 2016. [8]
Two of the BakerHostetler attorneys joining Pruitt, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman, recently established the Free Speech in Science Project to defend companies and groups over their climate science denial. The group arose shortly after investigations began into ExxonMobil’s knowledge and actions relating to climate change. A few months after the group launched, Pruitt signed a letter, along with other Republican attorneys general, to counter the climate fraud investigations of fossil fuel companies.
The Republican Attorneys General Association and the Rule of Law Defense Fund
Pruitt is a former chair and member of The Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF), a secretive group that actively fought against the Clean Power Plan. While the RLDF's funding remains largely unknown, Bloomberg reports that it received funding from Freedom Partners, a group tied to Charles and David Koch. Pruitt stepped down shortly before his selection by Trump to head the EPA was announced and resigned as a board member in December, 2016. [10], [11]
According to the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), The RLDF is a 501(C)(4) organization and is not required to publicly disclose its sources of funding. RLDF was created in 2014 by the Republican Attorneys General Association and shares staff and offices. [12], [13]
The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) has received almost $4 million in funding from fossil fuel interests since 2014. In 2015, RAGA had secretive meetings with energy companies Murray Energy and Southern Company, which Bloomberg noted coincided closely with large contributions from both energy companies. Shortly after that meeting, Republican attorneys general went on to fight the EPA's Clean Power Plan in court. [14], [15]
CMD notes how RAGA lets corporations get close to attorneys general and their staff: [16]
“Corporations can pay a premium rate RAGA membership fee of up to $125,000 for the privilege of holding private briefings with attorneys general and their staff, as well as attending the annual meeting. The conference provides ample opportunity for attorneys general to directly solicit campaign contributions from corporate representatives during private meetings, informal conversations and leisure activities—like kayaking, a five-hour golf game, and a National Rifle Association-sponsored shooting tournament.”
Politico reported that shortly before Pruitt's confirmation hearing, a new secretive Super PAC emerged calling itself Protecting America Now. Politico writes: [17]
“The new group, Protecting America Now, warns that Pruitt’s confirmation “is not a certainty” and says that millions of dollars are needed for advertising and social media campaigns to counter anti-Pruitt campaigning from “anti-business, environmental extremists,” according to a flier obtained by POLITICO.
Politico also reported on two other PACs, formed in 2015, both supporting Pruitt. E&E News details the background of Liberty 2.0 and Oklahoma Strong Leadership PAC, noting that “The Oklahoma Strong Leadership PAC is able to accept limited donations and coordinate with Pruitt, enabling the Oklahoma attorney general to funnel money to preferred political candidates across the country. The downtown Tulsa address is the same as that of Pruitt's campaign office.” [6]
“ALEC is unique in the sense that it puts legislators and companies together and they create policy collectively. The actual stakeholders who are affected by policy aren’t at the table as much as they should be […] Serving with them is very beneficial, in my opinion.”
Pruitt has filed 14 lawsuits against the EPA, as reported in a review by the New York Times. “In all but one of these 14 cases, regulated industry players also were parties. And these companies or trade associations in 13 of these cases were also financial contributors to Mr. Pruitt's political causes,” The New York Times reported. Case list below: [22]
EPA's Regional Haze Rule (2011)
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (2011)
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants (MATS) (2012)
Alleged EPA violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (2013)
Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (2014)
Draft rule of the Clean Power Plan (2014)
Clean Power Plan (July 2015)
Clean Power Plan (August 2015)
Clean Power Plan (June 2016)
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants (MATS) (2015)
Waters of the United States (WOTUS) (2015)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (2015)
Methane Emissions (2016)
Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction and Scheduled Maintenance (SSM&SM) State Implementation Plan (2016)
Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed and Modified Sources (2016)
Stance on Climate Change
February 2018
Pruitt expanded on his views on climate change. In an interview with KSNVTV in Nevada, Pruitt claimed that global warming could beneficial: [108]
“I mean, we know that humans have most flourished during times of what, warming trends? I mean, so I think there's assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing. […]” [108]
“The climate is changing and human activity contributes to that in some manner. It is the ability to measure it and the extent of that impact, and what to do about it that is subject to continued debate and dialogue.”
“I do not believe climate change is a hoax,” Mr Pruitt said.
In his opening remarks, Pruitt stated (see video below):
“Science tells us that the climate is changing, and that human activity in some manner impacts that change. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be.” [48]
“That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.”
April, 2015
In a 2015 Financial Times interview, Scott Pruitt said that humanity’s contribution to global warming was “subject to considerable debate.” After being told that 97 per cent of scientists endorsed the idea that humans had caused climate change, he said: “Where does that fit with the statutory framework? That’s not material at all. So that’s why I don’t focus on it.” [26]
Stance on Abortion
HuffPost reported that in the late 1990s, while an Oklahoma senator, Pruitt twice introduced a bill that would give men “property rights” over unborn fetuses. The bill required women to obtain a father's permission before aborting a pregnancy. [157]
“It’s not surprising that another member of Trump’s inner circle is hostile to women,” said Dawn Huckelbridge, a senior director at the progressive American Bridge PAC, which opposes Pruitt and supports abortion rights. “But framing a fetus as a man’s property is a new low.”
While his current position in the Trump Administration does not relate to abortion policy, he has regularly appeared alongside Trump to meet with evangelical leaders, and reportedly receives support from right-wing evangelical Christians.HuffPost previously reported this could be one of the reasons that Trump hasn’t fired Pruitt, despite numerous controversies. [158]
“There was tremendous pressure brought on the President to stay in that, by the way, for no good environmental reason. It was a bumper sticker. Paris was a bumper sticker. It was not about CO2 reduction. It was about penalizing our own economy. And I could give you some information about that if you’d like, but the President made a very courageous decision to exit.”
September 7, 2017
In a phone interview with CNNabout Hurricane Irma, Pruitt said that it wasn't the time to talk about climate change. [92]
“Here's the issue,” Pruitt said in the phone interview. “To have any kind of focus on the cause and effect of the storm; versus helping people, or actually facing the effect of the storm, is misplaced.”
He continued, adding, “What we need to focus on is access to clean water, addressing these areas of superfund activities that may cause an attack on water, these issues of access to fuel. […] Those are things so important to citizens of Florida right now, and to discuss the cause and effect of these storms, there's the […] place (and time) to do that, it's not now.”
Shortly after, Myron Ebell came to Pruitt's defense, writing at The Hillthat “Pruitt is of course absolutely right to focus on government action rather than idle chatter, but that has not dissuaded global warming activists and even some elected officials from trying to take political advantage of these two huge storms to promote their pet cause — policies to limit the use of fossil fuels.” [93]
“The EPA was never intended to be our nation’s foremost environmental regulator. The states were to have regulatory primacy. That construct –a construct put in place by this body – has been turned upside down by this administration. That’s why I’m here today. I’d like to explain to you why I so jealously guard Oklahoma’s sovereign prerogative to regulate in both a sensible and sensitive way.”
“Beyond the regional haze case, we have something on the horizon something more troubling. And that’s the proposed rule under 111(d) with respect to CO2 regulation. We have an EPA that is engaged in rulemaking, proposed rulemaking, that seeks to exert itself in a way that the statute doesn’t authorize at all.”
I have accepted the resignation of Scott Pruitt as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Within the Agency Scott has done an outstanding job, and I will always be thankful to him for this. The Senate confirmed Deputy at EPA, Andrew Wheeler, will…
“It is extremely difficult for me to cease serving you in this role first because I count it as a blessing to be serving you in any capacity, but also because of the transformative work that is occurring,” Pruitt said in his resignation letter posted by Fox News. [163], [164]
“However, the unrelenting attacks on me personally, my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us.”
June 28, 2018
The Daily Beast reported that Pruitt had instructed his staff to pitch “oppo hits” to media outlets on officials who had left on poor terms. Sources told TDB that targets had included former transition team member David Schnare and career official John Reeder, who Pruitt reportedly called a “communist” in private. [165]
“Sources say he’s actively undermined the reputations of former and current staffers, with campaigns that former senior EPA officials have described as 'ratf*cking',” TDB reported. [165]
Pruitt's former deputy chief of staff, Kevin Chmielewski, was suspected of leaking details about Pruitt's travel and spending. Sources say Pruitt pushed back by tasking aides with leaking information about Chmielewski’s alleged misconduct at EPA. Chmielewski has accused Pruitt of retaliation, a charge to be investigated by the Office of Special Counsel. [165]
“We have no doubt that PEER, with the assistance of the judge, is trying to box you in and embarrass you,” Huelskamp wrote. “Fortunately, you do not have to look far to find 'documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change.'” [159]
For these documents, Huelskamp pointed to “Climate Change Reconsidered,” a report compiled by Heartland's Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) in partnership with the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. “Heartland has submitted these volumes in digital form during EPA comment periods in the past, and we are certain physical copies were also sent to the agency,” he said. [159]
Among numerous other claims, Huselkamp stated that the NPCC report—which he included a copy of in the letter to Pruitt—contained scientific evidence that: [159]
“Summarizes the research of a growing number of scientists who say variations in solar activity, not greenhouse gases, are the true driver of climate change” —See SkepticalScience myth #2.
“Challenges the IPCC’s claim that CO2-induced global warming is harmful to human health” — SkepticalScience Myth #42.
“Explains how the sun may have contributed as much as 66% of the observed twentieth century warming, and perhaps more” — SkepticalScience myth #2.
Huselkamp described Climate Change Reconsidered as the work of a “'Red Team' that has been working to critique and correct the work of ideological alarmists on the 'Blue Team'” for more than a decade. “Feel free to cite this material, which contains more than 10,000 footnotes, in your response to the judge or in any other public setting,” Huelskamp concluded. [160]
May 2018
Maria Marshall, Director of Operations at the Office of the Executive Vice President at the Federalist Society was reportedly involved in planning a Rome visit for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in which he visited Cardinal Pell, a prominent member of the Catholic church and a climate change denier. [151]
Documents released by New York Times reporter Eric Lipton outlined planning for the dinner in May, and the schedule of the dinner. According to an email sent during the dinner, an EPA staff member said that Pruitt and Pell discussed a Wall Street Journal article that had reported on the proposal of a “red team/blue team” debate on climate science.
Here is a whole collection of documents assembled by The NYT that looks at this get together with Cardinal Pell–the planning for the dinner in May, the schedule from the actual dinner, and the official agency calendars. Just thought we would share it all. https://t.co/Dy2YotncMV
The Federalist Society's Leonard Leo also attended the dinner. According to another report in the New York Times, Leo also helped organize other elements of Pruitt's June 2017 Vatican trip. [152]
The Washington Post reported Pruitt had earlier dined at one of Rome's finest restaurants at the expense of The Federalist Society's Leonard Leo. When asked about the dinner, an EPA spokesman said Pruitt was allowed to accept the gift given the men's personal relationship, however Leo was subsequently reimbursed for the cost. Leo reportedly arranged private events for Pruitt and his aides in Rome, and Leo was invited to join a meeting between Pruitt and Archbishop Paul Gallagher to discuss environmental policy. [149], [150]
Altogether, Pruitt's Rome trip reportedly cost $120,000, according to previously-released EPA documents. That cost included $36,000 for Pruitt and staff to take a military jet from Cincinnati to New York. [153]
“The documents show the extent to which the E.P.A., which is the main federal agency charged with protecting human health and the environment, worked with groups like the Heartland Institute, which holds positions on climate change that are far outside the mainstream of scientific opinion, as opposed to the agency’s own chief scientists,” The New York Times reported. [148]
According to Benjamin D. Santer, a climate researcher at the Energy Department’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “The idea that the Heartland Institute should be dictating what E.P.A. does on climate science is crazy.” He added, “They do not have scientific expertise.” [148]
The emails also suggest that the EPA's Office of Research and Development, which normally does most of the science work of the Agency, was not active in the discussions. In one email, a program analyst in the office, Christina Moody, wrote: “We are not involved. The Administrator is the one who wants to do this and I’m guessing his folks are putting it together.” [148]
Oren M. Cass, a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, another conservative think tank, was also included in EPA communications: [148]
“We were thinking this meeting could be purely informative in nature, and not necessarily in the context of a specific EPA exercise,” Tate Bennett, associate administrator at the EPA wrote to Cass. [148]
Rodney W. Nichols, a consultant to the pro-carbon CO2 Coalition, wrote to Pruitt’s senior adviser for public affairs: [148]
The ‘Red Team’ idea is superb. We will be glad to help the initiative in any way we can,” Nichols said.
In a later email, Mark Carr, another consultant for the CO2 Coalition, wrote to Pruitt’s chief of staff, Ryan Jackson: [148]
“I’m following up on face-to-face conversations my CO2 Coalition colleagues and I have had with Administrator Pruitt,” Mr. Carr wrote. “As you likely know, our experts are strongly supporting and helping organize the Red/Blue team initiative.”
May 7, 2018
The Sierra Club released a set of over 24,000 pages of EPA documents via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, outlining what it described as “the culture of corruption in and around Scott Pruitt at the EPA.” View the complete set of searchable documents here. Highlights of the emails included confirmation of numerous meetings between Pruitt's senior political aides and polluting corporations, as well as connections between “Pruitt fundraisers, prominent Oklahoman business people, climate denial organizations abroad and more.” [141]
The New York Times reported: “the documents provide new indications … that the concern with secrecy is less about security than a desire by Mr. Pruitt to avoid criticism from detractors or even unexpected questions from allies.” [142]
Thepublicly released documentsalso revealed Pruitt's links to Matthew Freeman, former government lobbyist and treasurer for the American Australian Council, a “group that helps promote business for American based companies in Australia,” with clients including ConocoPhillips and Chevron. Freeman planned to have Pruitt meet with top Australian officials to discuss “the current US Australian environmental agreements that are currently in place and whether they should be changed or updated or canceled or replaced.” While the trip was postponed due to Hurricane Harvey, this is only one example of people with business interests planning Pruitt's trips. [141], [143]
The Guardian reported the Australian climate change denial think tank Institute of Public Affairs had proposed co-hosted a proposed Australian visit by Pruitt before it was cancelled when Hurricane Harvey hit the Texas gulf goast. An email from IPA's executive director, John Roskam, proposed a two-hour roundtable with Pruitt and IPA representatives who disagree with the mainstream consensus on climate change including Peter Ridd and Jennifer Marohasy. Roskam wrote to Matthew Freedman: “All of these people are excellent and I know Scott and his team would learn a great deal from a discussion with them. Among other names, Roskam also recommended Pruitt meet Maurice Newman, who has described global warming as “a delusion.” [156]
Roskam wrote that he had spoken to Brendan Pearson, then working for Minerals Council, who was “working with the [US] embassy” on the trip. In emails, Freedman described the IPA as a “very strong group for the administrator” and a potential co-host of the trip. [156]
In a New York Times article on the documents, Don Beyer, a Virginia Democrat with a history of criticizing Pruitt's spending was quoted as saying that the documents “reveal that lobbyists for energy companies and foreign Governments acted as travel agents.” [143]
Blomberg reported that the documents show Scott Pruitt has had many requests to meet from oil and gas associations, coal companies, oil executives and energy lobbyists since his appointment as Administrator of the EPA. Many of the requests “are laced with praise or full of congratulations for Pruitt's work to revise Obama administration pollution regulations.” [155]
A meeting with Kinder Morgan Public Affairs Vice President Dave Conover would have covered topics like pollution control requirements and and natural gas pipeline permitting, while Marathon Petroleum Corp. lobbyist Michael Birsic “leveraged a relationship with one of Pruitt's deputies to try to arrange a meeting for Heminger, his CEO, to talk about the U.S. biofuel mandate and air regulations.” [155]
Mother Jones reported the documents showed how Pruitt was open to meetings with industry executives and groups while EPA staff ensured “Pruitt’s events were not advertised ahead of time and were closed to the general public.” [147]
April 24, 2018
Pruitt unveiled a “secret science” initiative that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using any studies that do not make the raw data public. The rule would be subject to a 30-day comment period. [138]
“The science that we use is going to be transparent, reproducible and able to be analyzed by those in the marketplace,” Pruitt said. “This is the right approach. Today is a red letter today. It's a banner day. It's an agency taking responsibility for how we do our work and respect the process to make sure we can enhance confidence in our decision making.” [138]
A range of Pruitt's conservative allies attended the event at EPA headquarters, however press was not invited. Among those present was Lamar Smith, who tried to create a similar rule through legislation, but it failed to pass. Senator Mike Rounds, who authored a similar bill in the Senate, also attended. Emails released under a Freedom of Information Act request revealed Lamar Smith's staff coordinated with Pruitt on the rule,E&E News reported. [139]
Critics have noted that the rule would prevent the EPA from using all available data, with examples including data from patients that needs to be kept private and data subject to industry confidentiality.
“Administrator Pruitt is very clearly trying to exclude and ignore longstanding pollution and medical science that is peer-reviewed, embraced by the National Academy of Sciences among others, and also based on health data that people were promised would be kept confidential,” John Walke, the clean air director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Washington Examiner.[138]
Climate change denier Steve Milloy told E&E news that he also had a role to play: [139]
“I look at it as one of my proudest achievements. The reason this is anywhere is because of Steve Milloy,” he said.
The Examiner reported that the text of the proposed rule could allow possible exceptions to the transparency rule for corporate-funded research, and Pruitt may be able to grant special exemptions on a case-by-case basis. Examples included “confidential business information” and information “sensitive to national and homeland security.” [138]
“The proposed new policy will require EPA—when developing rules—to rely only on scientific studies where the underlying data have been made public and are available to be reproduced. Such a policy would likely violate several laws that mandate the use of ‘best available science,’ including the Toxic Substances Control Act and Safe Drinking Water Act because it would require EPA to ignore some of the ‘best’ scientific studies,” the letter read.
On the afternoon of the announcement, Marc Morano tweeted an image, posting with Steve Milloy at the EPAHQ ”celebrating the end of secret science.” In another tweet, Morano presented his book—“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change”—to a smiling Scott Pruitt.
Prominent climate change denier Will Happer posed for a photo along with CFACT's executive director Craig Rucker and Morano, with the title “At EPAHQ with Dr. Will Happer waiting for EPA chief Pruitt.”
April 12, 2018
Pruitt faced new allegations in a six-page letter signed by two Democratic senators and three House lawmakers, The New York Times reported. [133]
The letter followed a meeting between staff members and Kevin Chmielewski, who served as the EPA's chief of staff until he was removed from the position for bringing up objections to Pruitt's spending. View the letter below: [134]
“Although your spokesperson has repeatedly described those who raise concerns about your actions as 'disgruntled employees' whose stories should not be believed, our staffs found Mr. Chmielewski to be a credible professional who continues to express deep loyalty to the President and Vice-President. He came forward because, as he said, 'right is right, and wrong is wrong',” the letter concluded, along with a request for all documents relating to the concerns outlined in the letter.
Henry said the interview “got a little combative.” He demanded to know who was responsible for the raises: [136]
Henry: So, is somebody being fired for that?
Pruitt: That should not have been done. And it may be —
Henry: So, who did it?
Pruitt: There will be some accountability.
Henry: A career person or a political person?
Pruitt: I’ll have to — I don’t know. I don’t know who’s —
Henry: You don’t know? You run the agency. You don’t know who did this?
Pruitt: I found out about this yesterday, and I corrected the action.
Pruitt formally announced his decision to rewrite greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light duty trucks,DeSmog reported. [109]
“The Obama Administration's determination was wrong,” Pruitt said, quoted in the April 2 EPA press release. “Obama’s EPA cut the Midterm Evaluation process short with politically charged expediency, made assumptions about the standards that didn’t comport with reality, and set the standards too high.” [110]
The New York Times reported the event was originally planned for a Chevrolet dealership in northern Virginia and changed last-minute due to push back from some Chevy dealerships that didn't want the brand to be associated with the announcement. [112]
According to Media Matters, reporters from numerous outlets were blacklisted from the event, while CNN reported that the EPA had attempted to allow television access to Fox News without informing the other four networks: CNN, ABC, NBC, or CBS. A CNNreporter was in the building, but not allowed access to the room the event was held. [113], [114]
“No one disputes the climate changes. Is changing,” Pruitt said, responding to Gerard Ramahlo's question on his views of climate change. “That's, we see that, that's constant. We obviously contribute to it. We live in the climate, right. So our activity contributes to the climate changing to a certain degree. Now, measuring that with precision, Gerard, is I think more challenging than is let on at times. But I think the bigger question is what you asked at the very end: is it an existential threat? Is it somethat that is unsustainable, or what kind of effect or harm is this going to have? [108]
“I mean, we know that humans have most flourished during times of what, warming trends? I mean, so I think there's assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing. Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100? In the year 2018? And that's somewhat, I think, fairly arrogant for us to think we know exactly what it should be in 2100. So there's important questions around the climate issue that folks don't really get to.” [108]
E&E News's Climatewire noted that the interview went beyond Pruitt's previous claims on climate change, where in the past he hadn't spoken on what impacts climate change could have. [107]
“Pruitt is right that temperatures have varied throughout geologic history. But scientists say the speed of change sets the modern age apart. It's happening over a period of decades, not millenia. That makes comparisons to the past inaccurate, they say,” E&E News noted. [107]
Climate change denier Myron Ebell, a supporter of Pruitt, also noted the shift in Pruitt's views: [107]
“When you're learning about a subject, you pick up pieces, and you don't pick up other pieces right away,” Ebell said. “His rhetoric has shifted, and I expect that that is because he has been briefed by someone.” [107]
January 2018
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Pruitt outlined his plans to remake the EPA in 2018. His goals include rewriting rules for power plant emissions made under the Obama administration, and speeding the permit review process under the EPA. [106]
Pruitt emphasized he wanted to move fast. “There’s tremendous opportunity to show really significant results to the American people in a really short time frame,” Pruitt said. [106]
WSJ author Timothy Puko notes that Pruitt had memorialized the moment that Trump announced the exit from the Paris climate agreement by hanging a framed photo of the two of them in the Rose Garden with an autograph of Pruitt's prepared remarks, along with the comment “Scott—Great Job!” [106]
One of Pruitt's goals is to begin weekly performance assessments for ever EPA office, and to get the permitting process to under six months. Former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy commented on Pruitt's shift of focus for the EPA away from climate change. [106]
“Everything the agency does is to protect public health and the public from future risks,” said McCarthy. “You don’t stop smoking because it kills you when you smoke the cigarette; it’s because it kills you later. It’s the same argument with climate change. You take action today to protect health today and in the future.” [106]
December 2017
Kent Lassman, President of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), wrote that Scott Pruitt had invited him to the EPA, and that the think tank had “contributed to positive development recently at the Environmental Protection Agency”: [105]
“Speaking of impact measures, CEI contributed to positive development recently at the Environmental Protection Agency. Administrator Scott Pruitt invited me along with three colleagues for a signing ceremony where he officially put in place new conflict of interest requirements for the 22 scientific advisory boards at the EPA. It was a good day and is another step in the march to stop the flow of tens of millions of dollars from the federal fisc to outside advocates who only ever counsel more regulation,” Lassman wrote in a “fall policy update” at CEI. [105]
Lassman also said that he had been to the EPA and White House multiple times in recent months: [105]
“As a representative of the dozens of analysts, fellows, and lawyers who toil away at CEI, in the last two months I’ve found myself in multiple meetings at Office of Mangement [sic] and Budget, the EPA, and the White House. I can make an unqualified assertion: It is nice when the government wants our advice on how to shape a policy proposal.” [105]
November 30, 2017
The Heritage Foundation and Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) invited Pruitt to speak at their co-hosted event, “At the Crossroads IV: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.” Speaking on stage to TPPF President and CEO Brooke Rollins, Pruitt discussed how he believed that the new administration needs to “embrace a stewardship mentality” by making use of more natural resources, while “navigating the pathway to undoing these [Obama administration] regulations.” Pruitt highlighted recent accomplishments like undoing the Waters of the United States Rule, saying “what we’re doing is undoing those rules that were deficient.” [103]
“We as country need to ask ourselves, and we need to answer: what is true environmentalist? Is it truly prohibition? Is it to say that though we’ve been blessed with certain natural resources we shouldn’t use them? Or should we use those natural resources to feed and power the world and do so with environmental stewardship in mind? And it’s a very important question,” Pruitt said. “
[…] We need to embrace a stewardship mentality. And, to whom much is given, much is required. And use those natural resources we’ve been blessed with to bless others, both domestically and internationally. And we’ve got to have that dialogue.” [103]
Brooke responded, “I love that,” moving to a question on Pruitt's experience given he was “a complete Washington Outsider.” Pruitt said he is “so thankful to be serving the President, as I indicated earlier, because of his courage.”
“He’s made very, very courageous decisions,” Pruitt said. He’s willing to take on the culture here in Washington and across the country. As an example, that is the Paris Accord agreement, to exit that. There was tremendous pressure brought on the President to stay in that, by the way, for no good environmental reason. It was a bumper sticker. Paris was a bumper sticker. It was not about CO2 reduction. It was about penalizing our own economy. […] The President made a very courageous decision to exit.” [103]
November 9, 2017
Scott Pruitt addressed the Heartland Institute's“America First Energy Conference” at the Marriott Hotel in Houston, Texas in a pre-recorded video message. In the video, Pruitt personally thanked Heartland for “what you're doing to advance energy” and “for what you're doing to advance natural resources: [99]
As reported at the Houston Chronicle, speakers notably included two Trump Administration officials: Richard W. Westerdale II of the State Department and Vincent DeVito of the Department of Interior. David Bernhardt, deputy secretary of the Interior Department, was also formerly listed as a Heartland conference speaker, but apparently withdrew. [101]
A November 2017 exchange reported on by Mother Jones between Pruitt and the Federalist Society expressed concerns about one of Pruitt's events being posted online. An EPA official was concerned event could be “disrupted by those who see that the Administrator is attending and want to distract from the event.” The EPA official wrote: “If your team can take extra care to prevent that, we would appreciate it. A Federalist Society representative later reassured her: “Fed Soc does meticulous vetting of his registrants.” [147]
October 10, 2017
Pruitt issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to repeal what the official EPA press release describes as “the so-called 'Clean Power Plan (CPP).'” [95]
“After reviewing the CPP, EPA has proposed to determine that the Obama-era regulation exceeds the Agency’s statutory authority. Repealing the CPP will also facilitate the development of U.S. energy resources and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens associated with the development of those resources, in keeping with the principles established in President Trump’s Executive Order on Energy Independence,” the press release reads. [95]
As the New York Times reported, the decision is a “personal triumph for Mr. Pruitt, who as Oklahoma attorney general helped lead more than two dozen states in challenging the rule in the courts.” [96]
The proposal for repeal will now have to make it through a formal public comment period, and will face opposition from both environmental groups and Democrats. New York and Massachusetts attorneys general also said they plan to sue the E.P.A. once the repeal is finalized. [96]
September 18, 2017
A recent release of EPA documents following a FOIA lawsuit by the Sierra Club have revealed that Pruitt agreed to fast-track the clean up of a polluted California area following an unreported meeting with conservative radio and television host Hugh Hewitt. The area was designated a Superfund site, an EPA program that governs the investigation and cleanup of the nation’s most complex hazardous waste sites in order to convert those sites into community resources. [141]
“Pruitt has drawn criticism from environmentalists and other critics for letting prominent GOP backers and industry groups influence the agency's agenda — even as he has kicked scientists off of EPA's advisory panels and moved to limit the kinds of peer-reviewed research it will consider when making decisions,” Politico reported. [146]
August, 2017
According to an August 2017 article at The New York Times, David Schnare, who had previously announced he was quitting the EPA under Pruitt's leadership, clarified that his reason for resigning was Scott Pruitt's secrecy and mismanagement of the agency. [88]
“He’s got a serious problem because of his emails down in Oklahoma — he’s burned himself,” said Schnare, referring to the thousands of emails released as part of a request by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). (Pruitt had previously asserted the emails did not exist). [88]
Schare cited Pruitt's lack of transparency as one of the reasons for his resignation: [88]
“My view was that under this administration we would be good at transparency, particularly in the regulatory area,” he said. “But these guys aren’t doing that.” [88]
July 2017
Scott Pruitt's EPA began initial moves to assemble a “red team” designed to combat mainstream climate change science. The administration reached out to the Heartland Institute, which had a red team of its own designed to be the antithesis to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Washington Examiner reported. [89]
“The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency have reached out to the Heartland Institute to help identify scientists who could constitute a red team, and we've been happy to oblige,” Jim Lakely, the Heartland Institute's communications director, told the Washington Examiner.
“This effort is long overdue,” he said. “The climate scientists who have dominated the deliberations and the products of the IPCC have gone almost wholly without challenge. That is a violation of the scientific method and the public's trust.”
The Heartland Institute has been a long proponent of a red team “to critically examine what has become alarmist dogma rather than a sober evaluation of climate science for many years,” Lakely said. “In fact, Heartland has worked closely with a red team that has been examining the science for several years: the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC.” [89]
According to Climatewire, a senior administration official said that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt “believes that we will be able to recruit the best in the fields which study climate and will organize a specific process in which these individuals […] provide back-and-forth critique of specific new reports on climate science.” [90]
The official added that the program will use “red team, blue team” exercises to conduct an “at-length evaluation of U.S. climate science.” Climate scientists expressed concern that the “red team, blue team” concept could further politicize research and “disproportionately elevate the views of a relatively small number of experts who disagree with mainstream scientists,” Climatewire also reported. [91]
The New York Times reported that Pruitt's preparations were already underway by the time he spoke at an ACCCE board meeting where he discussed his strategy, The New York Times reported. Critics have said that Pruitt's approach would undermine the role of academic research at the EPA. [94]
I think this is fundamentally a dumb idea,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, told The New York Times in an email. “It’s like a red team-blue team exercise about whether gravity exists.”
June 16, 2017
The Associated Press received a new set of emails from Pruitt, further detailing his coordination with fossil fuel companies during his time as Oklahoma’s state attorney general. The set of emails ran over 4,000 pages and included schedules and speaking engagements between Pruitt and his staff as well as key representatives and lobbyists from the fossil fuel industries. [87]
The AP reported that one June, 2016 email showed a board member of Domestic Energy Producers Alliance (DEPA) seeking a meeting with Pruitt's team to brief them “regarding a pending federal tax issue that is related to the state’s position on the Clean Power Plan.” v
DEPA represents a range of independent oil and gas companies including interests of Harold Hamm, who backed Scott Pruitt politically and also frequently advised Donald Trump. [87]
The Washington Post reported that Pruitt had played a decisive role in influencing Trump's decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement. [83]
In Pruitt's prepared speech on June 1, Pruitt applauded Trump's decision to exit the agreement as “a historic restoration of American Economic Independence – one that will benefit the working class, the working poor, and working people of all stripes. With this action, you have declared that people are the rulers of this country once again.” [84]
The angles described by the Heritage foundation in an article by Mother Jones included:
“remind the audience of some of the fights he was engaged in with the Obama Administration (and just how bad it was). His selection as EPA Administrator (and maybe mention Sen. SEssions as AG and others now in the Administration who have fought hard to rollback and contain the power of the federal government) should give us hope The Paris Climate Agreement is one area the audience will be interested in hearing about. The Executive Orders and review of regulations are other ways the Administration is beginning to turn the corner.”
In a later email, the EPAs Millian Hupp thanked Heritage and mentioned that Lincoln Ferguson, speechwriter for Pruitt would find the remarks “helpful in preparing talking points.” [154]
March 29, 2017
The New York Times reported that Pruitt, as head of the EPA, rejected conclusions from his own agency's chemical safety experts who had recommended to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos used widely on farms across the United States. [97]
Pruitt released a statement concluding that the agency needed to study the science more before banning the chemical. While still used in about 40,000 farms, the chemical had already been banned in household settings. [98]
Late in 2016, EPA scientists found that the chemical was potentially causing health consequences including memory decline in farm workers and children who might become exposed to the substance through drinking water. Farm groups using the chemical as well as Dow Chemical, which sells the chemical to farmers under the name Lorsban, had argued the science was inconclusive. [97]
March 9, 2017
Scott Pruitt stated in a CNBC interview that he doesn't carbon dioxide to be one of the main contributors to global warming. The Hillposted a partial except of the interview: [80], [81]
“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see […] But we don’t know that yet […] we need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis,” Pruitt said.
DeSmog reported that environmental groups have expressed their displeasure with Pruitt's comments: [82]
“This is like your doctor telling you that cigarettes don't cause cancer,” Jamie Henn, strategic communications director for 350.org, said in a statement. “Pruitt’s statement isn’t just inaccurate, it’s a lie. He knows CO2 is the leading cause of climate change, but is misleading the public in order to protect the fossil fuel industry.”
DeSmog also put together a brief video, outlining Pruitt's stance on global warming, highlighting his earlier statements during his confirmation hearing when he was questioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders:
Among the documents released on February 21, CMD found emails further documenting the close relationship between Devon Energy and Scott Pruitt. They also found that the oil and gas lobby group American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) coordinated opposition in 2013 to both the Renewable Fuel Standard Program and ozone limits with Pruitt’s office. AFPM provided Pruitt with template language for an Oklahoma petition, noting “this argument is more credible coming from a State.” [78]
CMD reports that the AG's office has withheld or redacted an undetermined number of additional documents pending review by the court. [78]
January 18, 2017
Scott Pruitt sat before the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee for his confirmation hearing as a nominee to run the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pruitt was introduced by his “mentor,” prominent climate change denier James Inhofe. In response to a question from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Pruitt responded: [23]
“The climate is changing and human activity contributes to that in some manner. It is the ability to measure it and the extent of that impact, and what to do about it that is subject to continued debate and dialogue,” Pruitt said.
DeSmog reported how Pruitt was grilled on his fossil fuel ties early in the hearing. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse held up a chart outlining how Pruitt has financially benefited from fossil fuel companies including Devon Energy, Southern Company, Koch Industries, and ExxonMobil. [30]
“There were 1,016 words in the letter, and all but 37 words were written by Devon Energy,” said Merkley. “Do you acknowledge that you presented a private oil company's position, rather than a position developed by the people of Oklahoma?” Merkley pushed, “How can you present that as representing the people of Oklahoma when you simply only consulted an oil company to push its own point of view for its private profit?”
Pruitt responded that the letter wasn't intended to represent only one company, but the whole industry. See footage of Pruitt's hearing below, from C-SPAN.
EPA Confirmation Hearing Part 1)
EPA Confirmation Hearing Part 2)
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) mentioned Pruitt's letter to the EPA, authored almost entirely by Devon Energy, that had been reported in the 2014 New York Times investigation, asking pruitt if he would acknowledge that acknowledge that he “presented a private oil company’s position, rather than a position developed by the people of Oklahoma.” To this, Pruitt replied that he “disagree[d]” with Merkley’s conclusion and asserted that the letter was “representing the interests of the state of Oklahoma” because it “was representing the interest of an industry in the state of Oklahoma, not a company.” He added that he belived the oil industry is “a very important industry to our state” for justification. [7], [48]
Asked by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) whether he solicited fossil fuel contributions on behalf of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), Pruitt said that “I have not asked them for money on behalf of RAGA.” While Media Matters notes that Pruitt's claim may be true, it also points out that RAGA had sent out call sheets to Republican attorneys general for the purpose of soliciting funds from corporations, making this a point worthy of followup. [69]
Later in the hearing, in what Media Matters describes as “setting up an apparent conflict of interest,” Pruitt said that he would not recuse himself from his ongoing litigation against the EPA. Responding to a question by Senator Markey, Pruitt answered that he would only recuse himself if “as directed by EPA ethics counsel.” Markey noted that Pruitt’s continued involvement in those lawsuits would create a “fundamental conflict of interest.” [48]
Some of since suggested that Pruitt may have made a false statement under oath to the Senate during his confirmation hearing, Business Insider reports. Pruitt, while referring to an ongoing environmental lawsuit involving several poultry companies in Arkansas. Pruitt's predecessor, Drew Edmondson, had brought a case against 13 poultry companies, accusing them of dumping over 300,000 tons of poultry waste into the Illinois River. During Pruitt's campaign for state attorney general, he had accepted $40,000 in donations from those companies and the law firms representing them, according to The New York Times. One in office, Pruitt did not pursue the case as his predecessor had done. [72]
In response to questions from Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey during his confirmation hearing, Pruitt said: “I have taken no action to undermine that case. I have done nothing but file briefs in support of the court making a decision.” Reporter Daniel Rivero found no evidence that Pruitt or his office had ever filed briefs in support of making a decision with the case, apparently contradicting his claim. [72], [73]
“During his tenure as Attorney General of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has blurred the distinction between official and political actions, often at the behest of corporations he will regulate if confirmed to lead EPA,” the letter said. “Public reporting based on documents produced by Freedom of Information Act requests illustrate how Mr. Pruitt and members of his staff have worked closely with fossil fuel lobbyists to craft his office's official positions.”
Scott Pruitt was a speaker at a Federalist Society Event titled “The Clean Power Plan Goes to Court,” discussing the case of West Virginia et al. v. EPA. Video below: [33]
Speakers included:
David Bookbinder, Founder, Element VI Consulting
David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense Council
Hon. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General, Oklahoma
David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP
Moderator: Adam J. White, Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution
Scott Pruitt signed a letter (PDF), along with other Republican attorneys general, opposing the investigations of ExxonMobil discussing what it knew about climate change. The open letter criticized the coalition of state attorneys general working under the banner of “AGs United for Clean Power,” which supported the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, and also led the investigation into ExxonMobil. [34], [35]
“We think this effort by our colleagues to police the global warming debate through the power of the subpoena is a grave mistake,” the letter reads.
Signatories included the following:
Luther Strange — Attorney General, State of Alabama
Craig Richards — Attorney General, State of Alaska
Mark Brnovich— Attorney General, State of Arizona
Leslie Rutledge— Attorney General, State of Arkansas
Jeff Landry — Attorney General, State of Louisiana
Bill Schuette — Attorney General, State of Michigan
Doug Peterson — Attorney General, State of Nebraska
Adam Laxalt — Attorney General, State of Nevada
Scott Pruitt — Attorney General, State of Oklahoma
Alan Wilson — Attorney General, State of South Carolina
Ken Paxton — Attorney General, State of Texas
Sean Reyes — Attorney General, State of Utah
Brad Schimel — Attorney General, State of Wisconsin
May 26, 2016
Scott Pruitt testified (PDF) before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Subcommittee on Environment on the “Impact of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan on States.” [27]
According to Pruitt:
“the EPA was never intended to be our Nation’s frontline environmental regulator. The States were to have regulatory primacy. The EPA was to be a regulator of last resort. That construct, a construct put in place by this body, has been turned upside down by the current Administration.”
Pruitt also describes hydraulic fracturing (fracking) as having “ done more to reduce carbon emissions in this country than any other technological advancement of our time.” Pruitt added, “This didn’t happen as a result of the heavy hand of the EPA. Rather, it happened because of fracking and the positive market forces that those sorts of Oklahoma innovations create.” [27]
In the podcast, Pruitt reiterated his belief that if climate change skeptics can be prosecuted for fraud, so can “alarmists.” Take this tweet he wrote in June, 2016: [37]
Two attorneys working with Pruitt included David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman—the same two who in Mach 2016 recently established the Free Speech in Science Project to defend companies and groups over their climate science denial.
August, 2015
DeSmog reported on that, in 2015, just one week before state attorneys general asked federal courts to reject the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), republican state attorneys general had met in private with energy companies Murray Energy and Southern Company. Bloomberg also noted that the timing of the secret meetings coincided with large contributions from the energy companies to the Republican Attorneys General Association. [39], [15]
Representatives had attended the August 2015 Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) summit in West Virginia. The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) identified Murray Energy and Southern Company as having shelled out extra money to secure private briefings with attorneys general at the annual RAGA summit. [39]
“That’s highly inappropriate for law enforcement officials in a majority of states to be holding private meetings with corporations that they are supposed to be holding to account,” Nick Surgey, CMD Research Director, told DeSmog
Documents first obtained by the watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy (CMD revealed that Murray Energy and Southern Company had paid for the meetings with Republican attorneys general to discuss their opposition to the Clean Power Plan less than two weeks before the same GOP officials petitioned federal courts to block the CPP. [16]
“State attorneys general are supposed to enforce the law and serve the public interest, but instead these Republican officials have hung a ‘For Sale’ sale on their door, and the fossil fuel industry proved to be the highest bidder,” said Surgey. “It’s no coincidence that GOP attorneys general have mounted an aggressive fight alongside the fossil fuel industry to block the Clean Power Plan – that appears to be exactly what the industry paid for. Together, these documents reveal a sustained pattern of collusion between the fossil fuel industry and the Republican attorneys general on climate change obstructionism.”
Scott Pruitt was on a RAGA panel named “The Dangerous Consequences of the Clean Power Plan & Other EPA Rules.” Other attorneys general on the panel included Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, and Ken Paxton of Texas. [39]
“The EPA does not possess the authority under the Clean Air Act to accomplish what it proposes in the unlawful Clean Power Plan. The EPA is ignoring the authority granted by Congress to states to regulate power plant emissions at their source. The Clean Power Plan is an unlawful attempt to expand federal bureaucrats’ authority over states’ energy economies in order to shutter coal-fired power plants and eventually other sources of fossil-fuel generated electricity. This would substantially threaten energy affordability and reliability for consumers, industry and energy producers in Oklahoma. Oklahomans care about issues of air quality and our state policy makers are best-suited and specifically granted the authority by federal law to regulate these issues. We are filing this lawsuit in order to ensure decisions on power generation and how to achieve emissions reductions are made at the local level rather than at the federal level,” Pruitt said.
Pruitt was among attorneys general who filed a lawsuit against the EPA opposing the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (PDF), after the U.S. Supreme Court had already upheld the standard. The EPA's program was designed to address soot and smog pollution that drifts across state lines. EDF Action notes that Pruitt and his associated PACs have received campaign contributions from a number of the energy companies included in the suit including Murray Energy, Peabody Energy and Southern Company. [50], [49]
Co-litigators Murray Energy, National Mining Association and a Peabody Energy subsidiary had also contributed to the Republican Attorneys General Association, of which Pruitt previously chaired. [49]
A 2014 investigation by The New York Times found that energy lobbyists had drafted letters for Pruitt to send on state-branded stationary to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Interior Department, the Office of Management and Budget, and to President Obama outlining how environmental rules would negatively impact the economy. View sample letters here. [7], [42]
The Times pointed to a three-page letter that was written by the lawyers for Devon Energy. They write how Pruitt's staff had taken the draft written by Devon Energy, copied it onto state government stationery with only a few word changes, and forwarded it with Pruitt's signature. [7]
“This body called the EPA, this agency called the EPA, what is their role? What is their objective? Is it to pick winners and losers in the energy context? Is it to say renewables are good and fossil fuels are bad? So we’re going to use are regulatory power to penalize fossil fuels and to elevate other types of energy? […]
This EPA and all the agencies associated with it, they’re trying to make electricity so costly that they are forcing conservation, for you to use less across this country or pay an exorbitant price. That’s what this country is facing in the years ahead […]
Do you know under the know under the Clean Water Act that the EPA has no jurisdictional authority over hydraulic fracturing unless the frac fluid that is used in the extraction process has diesel in it? But despite that. FracFocus is something industry publishes and the fluids they use and if there’s no diesel EPA has no authority. But despite that what is the EPA doing today? They’re engaged in a study to do just what I mentioned, regulate and overtake the regulation of hydraulic fracturing at the state level. Either displace it or duplicate it to make it so time consuming that it affects production across this country. That’s picking winners and losers […]
Beyond the regional haze case, we have something on the horizon something more troubling. And that’s the proposed rule under 111(d) with respect to CO2 regulation. We have an EPA that is engaged in rulemaking, proposed rulemaking, that seeks to exert itself in a way that the statute doesn’t authorize at all […]
Again, another example that the EPA taking a statute and saying we’ll improve or fix or take a different approach than authorized by Congress.”
The Center for Media and Democracy's (CMD) PR Watch reported that Pruitt also spoke at a session on the proposed EPA's limits on carbon pollution. CMD writes: “In keeping with ALEC’s longtime denial of both the science and solutions to climate change, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a Republican, spoke about proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits on carbon pollution. That session was sponsored by the world’s largest publicly owned coal company, Peabody Energy, and the trade association for the coal industry, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), of which Peabody is a member.” [44]
March, 2014
Scott Pruitt's Office filed a lawsuit against Fish and Wildlife Services, alleging it had engaged in a practice he described as “sue and settle.” Pruitt argued that the federal government had emphasized threats on certain animal species, including the lesser prairie chicken, in order to limit oil and gas drilling. The Domestic Energy Producers Alliance was a partner in Pruitt's litigation. The nonprofit alliance of oil producers was run by Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, who The New York Times notes also served as the chairman of Pruitt's re-election campaign in that year. [45]
May 3, 2013
Scott Pruitt was a speaker at an American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) event titled “Embracing American Energy Opportunities: From Wellheads to Pipelines” (PDF) in Oklahoma. Others who attended included event moderator Patrice Douglas, Chair of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission; Richard Muncrief, Senior Vice President of Operations, Continental Resources; and Corey Goulet, Vice President, Keystone Pipeline Projects, TransCanda Corporation. [46]
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected the lawsuit and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision. [49]
Working in support of the American Farm Bureau’s, Pruitt helped file a lawsuit to overturn federal pollution limits for the Chesapeake Bay. Speaking with WYPR public radio, Ridge Hall, a former EPA attorney and vice chairman of the Chesapeake Legal Alliance, said Pruitt’s EPA appointment in 2016 would be bad for the bay. [28]
“He has consistently opposed air regulations, water regulations, and EPA generally,” Hall said. “So this is really a case of putting the fox in charge of the hen house. So I hope very much that that nomination will be wither withdrawn or defeated.”
Affiliations
Federalist Society — “Expert.” The Federalist Society notes that this doesn't necessarily mean that Pruitt is associated with the Society, just that he has “spoken or otherwise participated in Federalist Society events, publications, or multimedia presentations.” [4]
“Scott Pruitt 2014 ALEC Annual Meeting,” YouTube video uploaded by user American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), August 5, 2014. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
“Dear Fellow Attorneys General:” (PDF), State of Alabama Office of the Attorney General, June 15, 2016. Retrieved from DocumentCloud. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
While at API, Gerard has overseen campaigns under names like “Energy Nation,” “Energy Citizens,” “EnergyTomorrow,” or “the People of America’s Oil and Natural Gas Industry.” API's “Energy Citizens” portrayed itself as a “grass roots” initiative to combat climate change legislation.The Washington Post notes that in 2010, Gerard directed $63 million, one-third of API's budget, to an outside public relations firm for ad campaigns. [6], [7]
According to a search of the U.S. House of Representatives' Lobbying Disclosure database, Gerard served as a lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council starting as early as 2006, and has been a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute (API) since 2008. Gerard has appeared numerous times before the White House to argue against greenhouse gas regulations that would impact the oil industry. [3]
In 2012, The Huffington Post described Jack Gerard as a long-time backer and a close friend of Mitt Romney, while Roll Call described him as one of Romney's “most trusted advisers.” [8], [9], [10]
Stance on Climate Change
2016
While Jack Gerard does not appear to have an official statement on his views on climate change, the American Petroleum Institute offered the following statement in March of 2016, acknowledging that climate change is a legitimate problem: [11]
“It is clear that climate change is a serious problem that requires research for solutions and effective policies that allow us to meet our energy needs while protecting the environment: that's why oil and gas companies are working to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. “
Key Quotes
January 9, 2018
“I think we’re at the point where we need to get over the conversation of who believes and who doesn’t, and move to a conversation about solutions,” Gerard said about climate change, reported the Washington Examiner. [50]
“There are those who would advocate for no fossil fuels at all, which is frankly irresponsible, since the United States depends on fossil fuels to meet 80 percent of its energy needs.”
January 7, 2014
As reported at Huffington Post, Jack Gerard laid out API's agenda at a speech at Newseum, also calling on Obama to quickly approve the Keystone XL pipeline: [13]
“This has gone on far too long,” Gerard said. “I’d like to point out that the now five-plus year evaluation process of the Keystone XL pipeline has lasted longer than America’s involvement in the second World War, longer than it took our nation to put a man in space, and almost as long as it took to build the Transcontinental Railroad 155 years ago.”
“Many people don't realize that sixty-two percent of all the energy we consume in the United States today is oil and natural gas. The experts, even in the Obama administration, will tell you that 30 years from now, even with the most optimistic projections surrounding alternative and renewable forms of energy, 30 years from now we will still rely on oil and natural gas for 55% of all the energy consumed in the United States.”
“If we’re concerned about a particular member [of Congress], we will educate that constituency and encourage people to weigh in with their elected official,” he says in a conference room at API’s L Street office. “Congress is a lagging indicator. Congress is responsive to the American people. That’s why a well-educated electorate is a key to sound policy.” [6]
“[E]nergy is not about Republicans, not about Democrats. It is not a partisan issue. It’s an issue that affects Americans at large.” [6]
“What we’ve learned is that the public probably doesn’t understand or appreciate us as much as we’d like them to.”
December 7, 2009
Reacting to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's formal declaration that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health, Gerard said: [17]
“[The EPA Endangerment Finding] action poses a threat to every American family and business if it leads to regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Such regulation would be intrusive, inefficient, and excessively costly.”
“The American people have spoken loud and clear that they want politicians to put aside partisan bickering… . The oil and natural gas industry stands ready to help put America's vast energy resources to good use, strengthening our nation's economy and energy security, and providing good jobs for Americans across the country.” [19]
Gerard earlier criticized Obama's platform, saying “Obama's plan to impose a windfall-profits tax on oil companies would harm one of the few industries that are thriving” in the economic crisis. [20], [21]
June 17, 2008
“When industries are confronted by challenges, they tend to get shellshocked and step back into the foxhole. […] My philosophy is the opposite. Industries need someone to step forward and make the case when people don't understand them. […] Because there's a lot of anxiety in the Congress about the industry, we have to step forward and be compelling in our advocacy. It's not a time to be bashful. The more transparent the discussion, the better off we'll be.” [22]
Key Deeds
March 31, 2018
The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Gerard was appointed as a full-time leader of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The Tribune noted that it is unclear of Gerard's appointment to the LDS Church as the reason for his departure from API. [53]
January 24, 2018
Gerard announced that he would step down as API's president. According to Axios, Gerard said he would step down in August and work to find a replacement by September 1. [51], 52]
January 4, 2017
Jack N. Gerard delivered the American Petroleum Institute's “2017 State of American Energy” keynote, followed by a Q&A Session. View Jack Gerard's prepared speech here, or watch the video below: [23], [24]
Gerard reiterates the common argument by the energy industry that fossil fuels will provide cheap fuel to help those in poverty:
“And as the planet’s population continues to grow, demand for affordable and abundant energy will also grow, which will not only improve the standard of living for millions but will also lift many more out of poverty.”
Responding to a question on what API would do on climate change under the Trump administration, Gerard said:
“API and the industry generally will probably continue doing what it has been doing. And that is reaching out and demonstrating solutions to the challenge.”
According to Gerard claims that the energy industry is quite capable of managing itself despite “constraints imposed on the industry by regulations designed more to stifle domestic fossil fuel development than to benefit the American consumer.”
He concludes that we must “break from the recent past” which includes the “the regulatory onslaught of the last few years,” with things like limits on offshore drilling.
“We know we need more energy, but we haven’t seen any meaningful expansion of offshore access in decades,” Gerard said. “A small, vocal minority have taken it upon themselves to target these projects to advance their anti-fossil fuel political agenda,” he added.
December 4, 2016
Jack Gerard called on President-Elect Donald Trump to “restore the rule of law in our nation’s regulatory regime” by a fast approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline when he takes office. [25]
“Moving forward, I am hopeful President-elect Trump will reject the Obama administration’s shameful actions to deny this vital energy project, restore the rule of law in the regulatory process, and make this project’s approval a top priority as he takes office in January,” Gerard said.
“[A]mple work has already been undertaken to support the conclusion that there is no link between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water impacts,” Gerard writes.
In conclusion, Gerard notes that “API continues to stand ready to assist EPA in whatever way we can to bring this study to a successful conclusion based on sound science.”
“The report emphasizes the fact that in the decades ahead the oil, natural gas and petrochemical industries will spur the creation of hundreds of thousands of new, well-paying jobs that require people with a wide range of skill sets, training and educational achievement levels,” Gerard remarked. “Our goal is to ensure that anyone who wants a well-paying career has that opportunity. Because that’s the only way we will seize America’s energy moment.”
Discussing the Paris climate conference, Gerard said, “There should be no place for dogmatic adherence to ideology. But rather science, economic reality and real-world proven results should guide the delegates’ deliberations.”
Gerard goes on to denounce President Obama's Clean Power plan, claiming it “ignores the natural gas success story and pushes power plants to adopt sources like wind and solar” when it should be focusing on “natural gas, the energy source that is providing the greater benefit now.”
He also denounces the Obama administration's decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, claiming it “demonstrates the administrations [sic] priority for perception over reality. […] Carbon emissions will actually be 42 percent greater without Keystone XL.”
In conclusion, Gerard said that “America’s market-driven success should be the model for the Paris conference. […] That means avoiding massive, command-and-control government mandates.”
“Like the recently repealed crude export ban, the RFS is a relic of a time of energy scarcity,” Gerard said.
Gerard goes on to suggest that Obama should reduce regulation on the energy industry: “Instead of pursuing a barrage of job-crushing new regulations – many of which are duplicative and unnecessary – President Obama has the opportunity to seize the initiative and embrace policies that recognize the value of the energy resurgence and acknowledge that the goals of environmental progress and energy production are not mutually exclusive,” he said.
“Our industry is prepared to invest billions in LNG export terminals, each of which represent a multimillion dollar investment in infrastructure, as well as longterm investments in U.S. labor and materials. Yet, over 20 applications for export permits remain on hold at the Department of Energy (DOE),” Gerard lamented.
“I want to reiterate what API has stated in previous letters to DOS: it is in the best interests of all Americans to build the pipeline to ensure our long-term energy security, a dependable supply of Canadian oil to U.S. refineries and the creation of thousands of American jobs,” Gerard wrote.
With regards to the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), Gerard added, “Additionally, given the extensive examination already given to the potential climate impacts in the prior FEIS, additional analysis of this topic is not warranted.”
March 7, 2012
In testimony March 7 at a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, Jack Gerard suggested that President Obama could be blamed for high gas prices. The Washington Post reported that “The tale was an indictment of President Obama. But there’s one hitch, say oil experts. It doesn’t hold together.” They go on to cite industry experts, who explain other reasons for the fluctuations. [34]
January 4, 2012
Jack Gerard, in his capacity as President of the American Petroleum Institute, announced a new API campaign to promote approval for the Keystone XL pipeline and other energy industry ventures such as expanded offshore drilling, and opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and more federal lands to drilling. [35]
In a January 4 speech, Gerard also denounced the Obama Administration for its delay of the Keystone XL pipeline, calling it “the largest shovel-ready project promising 20,000 construction-related jobs over the next two years, enabling more than half a million new U.S. jobs by 2035,” reported Greenpeace. [36]
The “Vote for Energy” campaign was launched a day after the the Iowa caucus set the stage for the 2012 presidential election, and included ads on television, radio and print media. The campaign ran nation wide, but focused heavily on Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and other states where energy as a key issue, reports CNN Money. [37]
Greenpeace created a parody website, vote-4-energy.com, outlining the API campaign. Greenpeace said in a statement:
“The Vote 4 Energy campaign is the latest effort by the oil industry to fake citizen support for its agenda. The American Petroleum Institute has repeatedly spent millions to block clean energy solutions and fake grassroots support for Big Oil.”
You can view samples of API's “Vote 4 Energy” ads here, which include photos of, as The Washington Post put it, “ordinary looking folks” beside a pitch for how fossil fuel development will boost jobs. [6]
Jack N. Gerard sent an open letter to Lisa Jackson (PDF), Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), criticizing the agency's approach to evaluating the impacts of Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on drinking water. [41]
Gerard claims the scientific validity of the studies would be in question if the EPA tested samples at their own facilities “using unapproved protocol.” The letter was signed by representatives of major industry groups including: [41]
Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)
DeSmog reported on the API's “Fake 'Grassroots' Campaign” noting that the leaked memo asks API’s member companies to recruit employees, retirees, vendors and contractors to attend “Energy Citizen” rallies in key Congressional districts nationwide. API is focusing on 21 states that have “a significant industry presence” or “assets on the ground.” [7]
Grist noted that the majority of the Energy Citizens' rallies were organized by oil-industry lobbyists. They provided the following list of lobbyists who had been organizing the “grass roots” rallies: [43]
Greensboro, N.C., rally organizer Bill Weatherspoon is a registered lobbyist for API in North Carolina.
Lima, Ohio, organizer Terry Fleming is a registered lobbyist for the Ohio Petroleum Council.
Atlanta, Ga., organizer Ric Cobb is a registered lobbyist for the Georgia Petroleum Council.
Elkhart, Ind., organizer Maggie McShane lobbies on behalf of the Indiana Petroleum Council.
Nashville, Tenn., organizer Mike Williams is a registered lobbyist for API.
Bismarck, N.D., organizer Ron Ness is a former registered lobbyist for the North Dakota Petroleum Council.
Tampa, Fla., organizer David Mica registered lobbyist for the Florida Petroleum Council.
St. Louis, Mo., organizer Ryan Rowden is a registered lobbyist for the Missouri Petroleum Council.
Greenville, S.C., organizer Kay Clamp is a registered lobbyist for the South Carolina Petroleum Council.
Lincoln, Neb., point of contact Chris Abboud is a registered lobbyist for the Agri-Business Association of Nebraska.
Springfield, Ill., organizer Dave Sykuta is a registered lobbyist [PDF] for API.
Detroit, Mich., organizer John Griffin is a registered lobbyist for the Associated Petroleum Industries of Michigan.
Richmond, Va., organizer Mike Ward is a registered lobbyist for API in Virginia.
Philadelphia, Pa., organizer Rolf Hanson registered lobbyist for API in Pennsylvania.
Huron, S.D., organizer Tim Dougherty is a registered lobbyist.
Gerard states that API is ready to bus in company members and provide logistical support, and reveals that API has retained “a highly experienced events management company that has produced successful rallies for presidential campaigns, corporations and interest groups.” [7]
At the time, “Tentative venues” for the rallies included:
O'Dwyer's Magazine wrote that Energy Citizens “has loudly protested the EPA’s decision to have greenhouse gas emissions regulated under the Clean Air Act,” also noting that API members include Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, GE, Halliburton and Shell. [45]
Promotional flyers for the campaign warned that “Climate change legislation being considered in Washington will cause huge economic pain and produce little environmental gain,” reported The Wall Street Journal.[46]
“Jack N. Gerard” (PDF), Utah State University, March 17, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
Search for Lobbyist Name “Gerard, Jack.” Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. Search performed January 18, 2017. Archived .xlsx on file at DeSmog.
J.D., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C. (1992). [1]
Background
John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney is a Representative from South Carolina. He was a member of the South Carolina state house of representatives from 2007 to 2009, member of the South Carolina Senate from 2009 to 2010, and elected as a Republican to the One Hundred Twelfth and to the three succeeding Congresses (January 3, 2011-present). [1]Mick Mulvaney was elected during the 2010 “Tea Party” wave.
He received a degree in international economics, commerce, and finance from Georgetown University and a law degree from the University of North Carolina. Before working in government, Mulvaney practiced law for several years and then joined his family's real estate business. [2]
Mick Mulvaney, chosen by President Trump to lead the Office of Management and Budget, is known as a budget “hawk” who has historically wished to cut federal spending. Mulvaney said he would restore budgetary and fiscal sanity […] after eight years of an out-of-control, tax-and-spend financial agenda” under the Obama administration. [3]
Mulvaney has historically opposed funding for planned parenthood. In 2015, he called on House Republicans “to use every available tool to strip this organization [Planned Parenthood' of any and all taxpayer funds.”
Trump Pick as Director of the Office of Management and Budget
In December, 2016, Donald Trump selected Mick Mulvaney for the position of Director of the Office of Management and Budget. [8]
“He’s a tremendous talent, especially when it comes to numbers and budgets,” Trump said in a statement.
The Club for Growth applauded Trump's choice of Mulvaney as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, announcing that “The days of the White House producing massive, ridiculous budgets that are dead on arrival on Capitol Hill are over.” Club for Growth president David McIntosh described Mick Mulvaney as “a leader among economic conservatives, and the Trump Administration’s selection is a major victory for taxpayers and for all who want to see the downsizing of the federal government. […]” [9]
Mulvaney's nomination could face some challenges, given his disclosure that he failed to pay taxes for a household employee in the early 2000s. The Atlantic reported that He had failed to pay more than $15,000 in taxes, noting that such disclosures have threatened the nominations of high-profile presidential picks in the past. [10]
During his confirmation hearing, Muck Mulvaney made a number of statements at odds with the views of President Trump. For example, Mulvaney believed that tax increases could be on the table. Associated Press reported that Mulvaney said he would be open to increasing the amount of wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax, in addition to gradually raising the retirement age and other benefit cuts. While as a member of Congress Mulvaney had signed a pledge not to raise taxes, he has said “I will not be bound by that.” [11]
Stance on Climate Change
January 24, 2017
At his confirmation hearing as nominee for director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney said he did not believe climate change is a major risk. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) pressed Mick Mulvaney on his climate change views (video below): [12]
“Climate change driven partly by human-generated CO2 emissions is a huge risk ― agree or disagree?” Kaine asked.
After trying to avoid the question, claiming that climate change was not part of the responsibilities of the OMB director, Kaine still demanded an answer.
“I’m not asking about OMB. I’m off OMB now,” Kaine said. “Statement of fact, agree or disagree ― you’re gonna follow the facts ― climate change driven partly by human-generated CO2 emissions is a huge risk, agree or disagree?”
“I’m not convinced we’re at the point where we have to start to require American citizens to pay high prices ―” Mulvaney began to reply, before Kaine interjected.
“I’m just asking, do you agree with the fact. Is climate change driven by human-generated CO2 emissions a huge risk?” Kaine repeated.
“Yeah, I challenge the premise of your fact,” Mulvaney said.
“Energy independence, green technology, and innovation is something we should pursue as a nation. However, we shouldn’t seek to accomplish that by taxing people based on questionable science. Neither should we ignore domestic energy resources – coal, natural gas, oil – because of baseless claims regarding global warming.
“I believe that making it easier to drill for and use domestic resources, build nuclear power plants, and develop new technologies is the best formula for ending the current energy regime, which essentially has us empowering governments and groups that are markedly anti-American.”
Key Quotes
September 9, 2016
Mother Jones reports that in a September 9 Facebook post, Mulvaney questioned whether the federal government should be spending any money on scientific research: [14]
“[D]o we need government-funded research at all,” he wrote. Mother Jones notes that Mulvaney appeared to have deleted his Facebook page since then. In his post, Mulvaney tries to justify his position on government-funded research by questioning the scientific consensus that the Zika virus causes the birth defect microcephaly. Mulvaney wrote:
“And before you inundate me with pictures of children with birth defects, consider this:
Brazil's microcephaly epidemic continues to pose a mystery – if Zika is the culprit, why are there no similar epidemics in countries also hit hard by the virus? In Brazil, the microcephaly rate soared with more than 1,500 confirmed cases. But in Colombia, a recent study of nearly 12,000 pregnant women infected with Zika found zero microcephaly cases. If Zika is to blame for microcephaly, where are the missing cases? According to a new report from the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), the number of missing cases in Colombia and elsewhere raises serious questions about the assumed connection between Zika and microcephaly.”
During his confirmation hearing, Mulvaney said that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would need significant changes. Mulvaney said that he would not propose cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits for those already receiving them. [18]
“I’m not making my parents go back to work,” Mulvaney said. [18]
However, he also added that younger workers should expect to work longer than their parents.
“I think folks on Social Security and Medicare ought to be really worried,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. “The alarm bells should be going off right now.” [18]
Senator Bernie Sanders read quotes from Trump's campaign where Trump had said he would not cut the benefit programs.
“The only thing I know to do is to tell the president the truth,” Mulvaney said. “I have to imagine that the president knew who he was getting,” he added. [18]
“Yesterday, John McCain joined the Democrats to attack Rep. Mick Mulvaney, Trump's pick to head his OMB. This is wrong.
Call John McCain at 202-883-5773 and tell him to stand with you and support Rep. Mick Mulvaney for OMB right now.”
July, 2016
Mich Mulvaney spoke at an event hosted by the John Birch Society, an “ultra-conservative” group known for its continued emphasis on the communist threat and described by some as an embarrassment for the right, reported Mother Jones. [20]
Mulvaney's speech would address “the Federal Reserve's role in bailing out Europe.”
Mother Jones obtained audio of the speech, noting that Mulvaney proceeded to criticize the Federal Reserve, saying its actions have “effectively devalued the dollar” and “choke[d] off economic growth.” He praised bitcoin as a currency that is “not manipulatable by any government.” He told his audience, “You all put out some really good stuff and it's always interesting.” He said he was “looking forward to reading The Shadows of Power,” a 1988 book by James Perloff with the subtitle “The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline.” The book advances conspiracy theories about the New York-based think tank, alleging that it advocates “the creation of a world government.” After referring to this book, he told the crowd, “Keep doing it.” [20]
Power plants “are in the power generation business,’’ he said. “They’re not supposed to be in the waste-management business. The whole idea is the best way to manage this stuff was to put it at one site.’’ [22]
August 13, 2014
Mick Mulvaney was one of 54 members of Congress to sign an letter to the House Leadership calling to end the Wind Production Tax Credit. [23]
“[W]e believe Congress should stop picking winners and losers and finally end the wind PTC,” the letter concludes. ” We applaud Chairman Camp’s leadership on this important issue and urge you to stand firm with him in opposition to extending this provision and allow the wind energy to compete on its own.” [23]
Excludes GHGs from the definition of “air pollutant” for purposes of addressing climate change.
Exempts from such prohibition existing regulations on fuel efficiency, research, or CO2 monitoring.
Repeals and makes ineffective other rules and actions concerning GHGs.
July 27, 2010
Mick Mulvaney signed the “No Climate Tax” pledge (PDF) sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Institute for Liberty. His pledge reads as follows: [30]
“I, Mick Mulvaney, pledge to the taxpayers of the State of South Carolina and to the American people that I will oppose any legislation related to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.” [30]
April, 2010
Mick Mulvaney was a signatory to the 2010 Contract from America, a legislative agenda put forward by the Tea Party movement and unveiled the day before Tea Party Protests scheduled to be held across the country on April 15, Tax Day. The contract took inspiration from the Contract With America, released by Representative Newt Gingrich and fellow Republicans in the 1994 midterm elections, reports The New York Times. [31], [32]
Oneof the contract's “agenda items” is to “Reject Cap & Trade” and “Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.” [33]
Contract from America describes itself as a “a grassroots-generated, crowd-sourced, bottom-up call for real economic conservative and good governance reform in Congress.” The Contract from America website launched in September 1, 2009 and the final contract was revised until it was released in April, 2010. According to their website, the contract received support from individuals from groups including FreedomWorks, National Taxpayers' Union, Liberty Central, American Solutions, Regular Folks United, and various tea party groups. [34]
“Founding Partners” listed on the Contract from America website include:
Pena Levy. “Trump's Pick for Budget Director Isn't Sure the Government Should Fund Scientific Research,” Mother Jones, December 19, 2016. Archived February 7, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/xrUGQ
Rick Perry served as the 47th governor of Texas, sworn in on December 21, 2000 and was elected to four-year terms in 2002, 2006, and 2010. Perry began his political career in 1985, working as a representative for a rural West Texas district in the state House of Representatives. He was elected to statewide office in 1990, and served as Texas Commissioner of Agriculture for two terms. Perry graduated Texas A&M University in 1972. [1]
In the past, Perry has said that global warming is an unproven scientific theory and that climate has changed since the Earth was formed. He has also opposed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), suing the agency on the climate issue in 2010. He has also advocated to reduce restrictions on oil and gas drilling, saying that there is little proof that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) contaminates groundwater. Perry is the author of Fed Up!, a 2010 book where he speculated that the earth was “experiencing a cooling trend.” [5], [6]
“It is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone,” he said, beginning to lay out one of the staples of his stump speech. “Commerce, Education, and the — what’s the third one there? Let’s see,” Perry said.
“Commerce and, let’s see,” he continued. “I can’t. The third one, I can’t. Sorry. Oops.” [8]
In 2016, The New York Times (NYT) discussed Perry as the pick as Energy Secretary, noting that Perry would be heading a post that he once wanted to eliminate. NYTnotes that the agency is far more devoted to national security than it is to the extraction of fossil fuels that is Perry's expertise. [9]
“The Rick Perry choice is so perplexing,” said former Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, who previously led the committee that oversees the Energy Department’s budget.
“I think very few people understand that the Energy Department, to a very substantial degree, is dealing with nuclear weapons,” he said. “And Rick Perry suggested the agency should be abolished. That suggests he thinks it doesn’t have value.” [9]
Mother Jones noted a potential conflict of interest in Perry's position on nuclear waste given his past association with Waste Control Specialists (WCS), a company eager to get in on interim storage for nuclear waste that applied for a license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2016. [10]
WCS had formerly lobbied the Texas legislature for six years in order to pass legislation that would allow private companies to be responsible for low-level nuclear waste. That legislation passed in 2003 and was signed by Perry. When WCS applied for a state license to handle waste, a panel of state engineers and geologists found in 2007 that groundwater contamination at the proposed disposal sate was “highly likely.” [10]
Despite this, members on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (appointed by Perry) signed off on the license. Three staffers at the agency resigned in protest over the decision. “We knew from the beginning that this permit was intended to be issued,” Glenn Lewis, a member of the review panel, said in a 2011 interview with NPR. [10]
Critics noted that Harold Simmons, since deceased, had been one of Perry's largest financial contributors over the years, contributing over $1.3 million to his campaigns. [10]
“Lo and behold, the company that lobbied to get the legislation passed and gave lots of political contributions was the only applicant, so it was a real corporate sweetheart deal,” Cyrus Reed of the Texas Sierra Club said. [10]
Climate change denier Kathleen Hartnett-White, whom Perry appointed to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality from 2001 to 2007, called Perry’s leadership “a win for the environment and a win for the economy.” [11]
Energy Industry Connections
Some critics brought up potential conflicts of interest regarding Perry's appointment at the Energy Department, noting he sat as a board member for two pipeline companies that are part of Energy Transfer, the group behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline among others in South Texas. [12], [13]
“I don't know if you could have a worse pick for Secretary of Energy than a person who is so much in bed with the fossil fuel energy sector,” said Robin Schneider, executive director of Texas Campaign for the Environment.
In February, 2015, Rick Perry was named a board member of Energy Transfer Partners. DeSmog reported that while Perry promised he would not publicly advocate for the Dakota Access pipeline in Iowa, he had already promoted the pipeline just two days prior to his appointment on the board of the company. Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren, a major donor who contributed $250,000 to Perry's 2012 presidential super PAC, was on the advisory board of Rick PAC which helped fund Perry's 2016 presidential campaign. Warren contributed a total of $6 million to Super PACs supporting Perry. [15]
Rick Perry & The EPA
Rick Perry sued the EPA multiple times between 2009 and 2011. When 17 states sued the EPA over new regulations that would control global warming, Texas was the only state to pursue an “unfriendly” approach, as described by the National Journal. While other states simultaneously worked on plans of compliance with the EPA in case their lawsuits fell through, Texas was the only state that did not opt for what experts described as the “friendly FIP [federal implementation program].” Perry made it clear that Texas would not comply. [16]
“I never felt that Bush was anti-environmental so much as clueless about the environment,” said Kramer. “I see Perry as more proactively carrying out an anti-environmental agenda primarily for political purposes.”
Perry said that, in suing the EPA, the state was “defend[ing] Texas’s freedom to continue our successful environmental strategies free from federal overreach.” [2]
Stance on Climate Change
January, 2017
Speaking in prepared testimony on global warming, Perry said: [18]
“I believe some of it is naturally occurring, but some of it is also caused by man-made activity.”
“The question is how do we address it in a thoughtful way that doesn’t compromise economic growth, the affordability of energy or American jobs,” he added. [18]
Dallas News reports that he said flatly that “climate is changing” and that some of the cause is human activity. [19]
“I don’t believe that we have the settled science by any sense of the imagination to stop that kind of economic opportunity.” [20]
Perry also said that reducing the use of coal would “strangle our economy.” [20]
“Calling CO2 a pollutant is doing a disservice the country, and I believe a disservice to the world,” he said. [20]
“I’m not a scientist,” he said. But “short term, I’m substantially more concerned about Iran changing the temperature of New York,” he said, alluding to potential nuclear conflict. [20]
“Well, I do agree that there is – the science is – is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at – at – at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just – is nonsense. I mean, it – I mean – and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell. [21]
But the fact is, to put America's economic future in jeopardy, asking us to cut back in areas that would have monstrous economic impact on this country is not good economics and I will suggest to you is not necessarily good science. Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy.” [21]
Responding to a followup question on whether there were “specific scientists or specific theories that you've found especially compelling,” Perry said: [21]
“Let me tell you what I find compelling, is what we've done in the state of Texas, using our ability to regulate our clean air. We cleaned up our air in the state of Texas, more than any other state in the nation during the decade. Nitrous oxide levels, down by 57 percent. Ozone levels down by 27 percent. [21]
That's the way you need to do it, not by some scientist somewhere saying, “Here is what we think is happening out there.” The fact of the matter is, the science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we're going to put America's economics in jeopardy.” [21]
We are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climate's changed — they've been changing ever since the Earth was formed.” [5]
Without referencing sources, Perry said that implementing “anti-carbon programs” would cost billions of dollars. [5]
“I don't think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on what is still a scientific theory that hasn't been proven, and from my perspective is more and more being put into question,” he said. [5]
“[T]here are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.” [5]
2010
The Washington Post reported that Perry's book Fed Up! outlined a number of his views on climate change, where he mentioned things like “doctored data” and “so-called science.” [22]
“It's all one contrived phoney mess that is falling apart under its own weight,” he declared. “Al Gore is a prophet all right, a false prophet of a secular carbon cult.”
“Look those people in the eyes that are starving and tell them you can’t have electricity,” Perry said in his speech. “Because as a society we decided fossil fuels were bad. I think that is immoral.” [51]
“My past statements made over five years ago about abolishing the Department of Energy do not reflect my current thinking,” Perry said during his confirmation hearing. “In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.”
February 27, 2015
Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Rick Perry said that he cares about “real pollution,” but not about reducing carbon dioxide emissions. He said Texas “decreased our nitrogen oxide levels, which by the way is real. It’s a real emission. He then highlighted emissions reductions that took place while he was governor. “Our carbon dioxide levels were down, whether you believe in this whole climate change concept or not,” he said. [25]
December 18, 2011
Rick Perry reacted after a student questioned his support for fracking during an event in Decorah, Iowa,Politico reported: [26]
“We can have this conversation, but you cannot show me one place — not one! — where there is a proven pollution of groundwater by hydraulic fracturing,” Perry told 22-year-old Carrie Kaufmann, a student at Luther College. “I am truly offended that the American public would be hoodwinked by stories that do not scientifically hold up.”
October 12, 2011
Speaking to a crowd of Hoosier State Republicans, Perry accused the Obama administration of pursuing an “activist agenda”: [27]
“The next economic boom is right under our feet. Our own oil resources alone are vast enough to meet the next 300 years of energy demand at today's levels,” he said. “… And what has been this administration's response to our energy potential? They've thrown up every bureaucratic obstacle possible in order to advance an activist agenda.” [27]
”[…] EPA, we don't need you monkeying around and fiddling around and getting in our business on every kind of regulation that you can dream up. You're doing nothing more than killing jobs. It is a cemetery for jobs, at the EPA.” [28]
September, 2006
In a September 2006 op-ed, Rick Perry accused an “extreme element of the environmental community” for opposing coal plants: [29]
“ I would argue they want to return us to the era of horse and buggy except they would probably complain about the methane gas from horse manure, too,” Perry wrote. [29]
“EPA in particular illustrates how Washington’s command-and-control environmental bureaucracy is destroying federalism and individuals’ ability to make their own economic decisions.” [17]
“The president knows I like where I am,” Perry said. “He knows that we have done a really good job of keeping this agency focused, particularly in those areas he is interested in: selling American, running an agency effectively.”
Perry said he and President Trump had discussed a range of issues, but did not talk about changing jobs.
“We talked about a lot of different things,” Perry said. “What he didn’t talk about was me changing jobs. I know there is a lot of interest in that in the last 48 to 72 hours.”
During the Washington Post interview, Perry became defensive when the topic of wind and solar power came up and he was asked about advancing coal:
“We're not here just to promote the fossil fuels,” Perry said. “We're here to promote wind, and solar, and hydro, and maybe some forms of energy that we haven't even dreamed up yet.”
“But for the foreseeable future, fossil fuels are going to play a really important role, not just in America, but in the world,” he said.
March 7, 2018
Perry was a speaker at CERA Week, an annual energy conference in Houston, Texas that attracts a range of energy company executives and leaders of oil producing countries. During his speech, Perry touted “enery realism,” ThinkProgress reported. [51]
“We don’t need to choose between growing our economy and caring for our environment,” he said. “That is at the heart of this new energy realism.” [51]
According to Perry, “clean” fossil fuels are the future, and a focus on renewables isn't the answer. “Listen, we support renewables,” he told the audience, but suggested that the focus under the Paris agreement was not the right approach. “What are we supposed to do in the meantime?” he asked, pointing to projections that fossil fuels aren't going anywhere soon. [51]
During his speech, Perry claimed it was “immoral” for poor nations to pivot away from fossil fuels. [51]
September 29, 2017
Perry pushed for sent a proposed rule to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to speed the approval of a proposal which would ensure that nuclear and coal plants received compensation for the “resilience” they give to the power grid,The Washington Examiner reported. [48]
“A reliable and resilient electrical grid is critical not only to our national and economic security, but also to the everyday lives of American families,” Perry said in a letter accompanying the rule. “A diverse mix of power generation resources, including those with on-site reserves, is essential to the reliable delivery of electricity — particularly in times of supply stress such as recent natural disasters. My proposal will strengthen American energy security by ensuring adequate reserve resource supply and I look forward to the Commission acting swiftly on it.”
Representatives from the coal industry approved Perry's move. [48]
“We urge FERC to act swiftly on this important proposal,” said Hal Quinn, the president of the National Mining Association. “Secretary Perry's action today is a long-overdue and necessary step to address the vulnerability of America's energy grid.”
“We worry today's proposal would upend competitive markets that save consumers billions of dollars a year,” said Amy Farrell, a senior vice president for American Wind Energy Association.
Don Santa of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said the plan would favor “a very limited set of fuels and technologies.”
Asked if carbon doixide was the main driver, Perry replied: [45]
“No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.”
“The fact is this shouldn't be a debate about, 'Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?' Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?” he added. [45]
The Washington Post notes that Perry's comments echo those of and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt, who also said he didn't believe CO2 was a major driver of climate change on the program in March. [46]
“Both men’s views contradict the conclusions of scientists at Pruitt’s own EPA as well as NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” the Post adds. [46]
ThinkProgress also covered Perry's announcement, accusing CNBC's host of having “failed to perform the most basic fact checking,”and writing that “Perry’s denial of the role of CO2 in global warming is wrong, according to science.” [47]
January 19, 2017
Rick Perry attended his confirmation hearing for his position to lead the U.S. Department of Energy where he addressed questions about his previous statements about eliminating the very department he sought to lead. Full video below. [30]
Perry said that he regretted his past statements about the department: [23], [24]
“My past statements made over five years ago about abolishing the Department of Energy do not reflect my current thinking,” Perry said during his confirmation hearing. “In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.”
According to Perry's spokesman, Mark Miner, Perry “discussed the need to elect more Republican Governor's around the country.” Miner said that “This was no different than other speeches the governor gives talking about job creation and the economy in Texas.” He added that Perry “flew on a private plane and no taxpayer dollars were used.” [34]
April, 2006
Mother Jones reported, in an article titled “Rick Perry's Dirty Deals With Big Coal,” that Perry signed an executive order to fast-track the approval of new coal-fired power plants in Texas. The order shortened the process that previously took several years to a matter of months. At the same time, “Perry was raking in tens of thousands of dollars in donations from TXU,” the largest utility and CO2-emitter in the state. [35]
“Perry is very pro-coal, and will bend over backward to do whatever the coal industry asks of him,” said Tom Smith, director of Public Citizen's Texas office. “He's the longest ongoing natural disaster in Texas history.”
The Texas Observer noted that on the same day that Perry issued the order, retired TXU chairman Erle Nye gave $2,000 to Perry’s campaign while TXU sources donated a total of $104,000 to Perry during his 2006 re-election bid. Between 2001 and 2011, Perry took more than $630,000 in contributions from TXU. [17], [2]
Only three of the proposed 11 powerplants were eventually built. [2]
April, 2014
In 2014, Perry wrote a letter to the Texas House urging lawmakers “to develop a Texas solution for the long-term resolution of [high-level waste] currently residing inside our borders.” [36]
While he did not specify Waste Control Specialists in the letter, he did mention to a local tv station that there was “a legitimate site in West Texas.” [36]
“Sure. I think there are a couple of sites in the State of Texas that the local communities actively are pursuing that possibility,” Perry told KCBD. [36]
In addition to the letter, Perry forwarded a 49-page report by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, outlining storage options for high-level nuclear waste in Texas. [37]
“Finding a site that has local and state support would greatly enhance the chance of a private centralized interim storage site being successfully sited and constructed,” the report concludes. [37]
2003
Rick Perry signed a bill to privatize nuclear waste disposal in Texas. The legislation was tailored for Waste Control Specialists, a company owned by Harold Simmons, a Dallas billionare (now deceased) who was also one of Perry's largest financial supporters over the years. A panel of eight sate employees reviewed a disposal site proposed by WCS, working for for years to make their report. However they said that they knew the permit would be issued regardless of their findings: [38]
“We knew from the beginning that this permit was intended to be issued,” said Glenn Lewis, who was on the panel. “The realization that Harold Simmons was a top campaign contributor to Gov. Perry,” Lewis said. [38]
The panel, still, found that the waste site should not be buried so close to large aquifers: [38]
“I am frankly surprised even now that a team of engineers and geologists, knowing what the political expectations were, still worked up the nerve to say, 'No, it's not safe,'” Lewis said. [38]
WCS had their license approved by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. All three commissions on the panel had been appointed by Perry, and they chose to ignore the environmental review. [38]
One commissioner, Larry Soward, said that there were numerous complaints and that a call for a public hearing had been denied by the other commissioners. [38]
“They voted to issue the license without sending it to a hearing, and I voted against that,” Soward said. “I think that generations to come are going to have a real problem from that site that they're going to have to deal with,” he added. [38]
Also in 2003, Perry also signed a bill making permanent a tax break for “high cost” natural gas. [39]
“Rick Perry: EPA is 'cemetery for jobs',” YouTube video uploaded by user League of Conservation Votors, September 12, 2011. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
In August 2016, Republican Senator and noted climate change denier Jim Inhofe told conservative radio host Eric Metaxas that children were being “brainwashed” into believing in climate change in school, and that we needed to “un-brainwash” them once they come out. This entire exchange (available here) arose from a conversation Inhofe claims to have had with his granddaughter because she dared ask him why he doesn’t believe in climate change.
On March 16, 2017, more than eight months after Inhofe told Metaxas about this alleged brainwashing scam, the Senator decided to double-down on his previous comments. He told CNN’s New Day that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was in the business of “brainwashing our kids” by releasing “propaganda” about climate change and the role that human beings are playing in the destruction of the planet.
Inhofe was appearing on the program to defend the proposed budget cuts that are looming for the EPA. During his response to the budget cuts, Inhofe said the following, as reported by The Hill: “We want to deliver the services. We ought to make things clean … But we ought to take all this stuff that comes out of the EPA that's brainwashing our kids, that is propaganda, things that aren't true, allegations.”
While Inhofe was willing to admit during his interview about the EPA that efforts like the Clean Air Act have provided cleaner air, he maintained that the agency is trying to brainwash children.
Inhofe’s statements are sure to draw the ire of both the scientific community and the concerned public, but perhaps the biggest critics he should fear are those in his own family tree.
As he personally pointed out in August, his own grandchildren don't understand his anti-science views on climate change, and those are the people who will feel the brunt of his anti-environmental legacy (such as the devastation of the Great Barrier Reef) more than Inhofe ever will.
MSC. in Acoustics, University of New South Wales. [1]
Doctor of Business, University of New South Wales. [1]
BSc. Physics and Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney. [1]
BEng. Electrical Engineering, University of Sydney. [1]
Background
Australian hedge fund manager Michael Hintze is one of the biggest donors to the UK’s Conservative Party and has been dubbed the godfather of Tory donors by some in the British press. He also donated money to the Brexit campaign and is one of the key funders of UK climate science denial thinktank the Global Warming Policy Foundation. [2], [3], [4]
In 1999 Hintze launched his hedge fund Convertible & Quantitative Strategies (CQS) in London after stints at Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse First Boston. In 2011, Hintze was also revealed as one of Liam Fox’s closest supporters. Hintze helped to bankroll office space and trips for Fox and colleagues involved with the now defunct libertarian thinktank the Atlantic Bridge. Hintze was also a member of the Atlantic Bridge’s advisory council along with Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. [2]
Hintze is also a trustee and funder of the UK neoliberal thinktank the Institute of Economic Affairs. Hintze and his charitable family foundation have also donated to charities of the UK's Prince Charles, to restoration works in the Vatican, and to various organisations in the arts and museums world. The Hintze Hall in London's Natural History Museum was so named after a $5 million donation from the Hintze foundation. [5],[2], [6]
While Hintze avoids public statements, he is reportedly one of the earliest financial backers of the UK’s only climate science denial thinktank the GWPF. A dedicated supporter, he attended the group’s 2017 annual invitation-only lecture delivered by former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. [8], [9]
Key Quotes
January 1, 2015
“Markets are a good thing and they are the best way of ensuring we have fairness,” Hintze said in an interview with the Daily Mail.[10]
Hintze donated £100,000 to the Vote Leave campaign group on 22 June, the day before Britain headed to the polls to vote in the EU Referendum. [11]
May 2014
Through a family trust, the Hintze Family Charitable Foundation, Hintze and his wife donated £5 million to the Natural History Museum in London. This was the largest donation the museum had ever received in its 133-year history, and saw the renaming of the central hall to Hintze Hall. [12]
The money will be used for scientific research and to maintain collections, it was reported at the time. “We feel privileged to be able to make a contribution towards securing this centre of scientific knowledge and research for present and future generations,” Hintze said. [12]
October 2013
Michael Hintze’s £3m 60th birthday bash was attended by senior Tory politicians Theresa May, Boris Johnson, William Hague, and Chris Grayling. [3]
2009
In 2009 Theresa May, then Conservative shadow minister for work and pensions, was the beneficiary of £1,200 in “hospitality” from Michael Hintze. [7]
2007-2009
Between 2007 and 2009 Hintze donated £11,000 to David Davis (note one donation is under a misspelling of “Hitnze”). [7]
2007-2008
In the run up to Boris Johnson's 2008 May London Mayoral Election, Michael Hintze donated the following: £2,000 in December 2007, £2,000 in February 2008, and £1,000 in March 2008. [7]
January 2007
Hintze donated £10,000 to Liam Fox, who at the time was the UK’s Defence Secretary and founder of the Atlantic Bridge. [7]
Bachelor of Arts (BA), History, Cambridge University. [1]
Background
Owen Paterson is MP for North Shropshire and a former environment secretary. He was appointed to the role in 2012 but was sacked by then prime minister David Cameron for fear his view that climate change was not a serious problem would cost the Conservative party votes in the 2015 general election. [2], [3]
After being sacked from the cabinet, Paterson set up the pro-Brexit thinktank UK2020, which sought to cut regulations and targets related to climate change. [8], [9]
Stance on Climate Change
October 2014
In his lecture to the GWPF, later revealed to have been partly written by climate science denier Matt Ridley, Paterson said: [10]
“I readily accept the main points of the greenhouse theory. Other things being equal, carbon dioxide emissions will produce some warming. The question always has been: how much? On that there is considerable uncertainty.
“For, I also accept the unambiguous failure of the atmosphere to warm anything like as fast as predicted by the vast majority of climate models over the past 35 years, when measured by both satellites and surface thermometers. And indeed the failure of the atmosphere to warm at all over the past 18 years – according to some sources. Many policymakers have still to catch up with the facts.
“I also note that the forecast effects of climate change have been consistently and widely exaggerated thus far.”
“We are the only country to have legally bound ourselves to the 2050 targets – and certainly the only one to bind ourselves to a doomed policy. In the absence of a legally binding international agreement, which looks unlikely given disagreement within EU member states and the position of the BRIC countries, the Climate Change Act should be effectively suspended and eventually repealed.”
“I remain open-minded to the possibility that climate change may one day turn dangerous. So, it would be good to cut emissions, as long as we do not cause great suffering now for those on low incomes, or damage today’s environment.”
July 19, 2014
Following his being fired from his position as Environment Secretary, Paterson said: [12]
“I have not been afraid to take on the greens on everything, from fracking to GM foods, the badger cull, even bees!”
Key Deeds
January 22, 2019
A Guardian report revealed that unknown donors had funded nearly £39,000 worth of trips by Paterson via UK 2020, the thinktank he set up after leaving the cabinet in 2014. The trips included one to the US in November 2018 to campaign for a hard Brexit. [26]
September 19, 2018
Paterson delivered a speech to the Heritage Foundation, a free-market think tank based in Washington DC which has repeatedly spread disinformation about climate change and received funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch Foundation. [13]
According to the event description, Paterson made the case for how Brexit “can further strenghten the Special Relationship [between the UK and the US] as a powerful force for free trade and innovation on the world stage.” [13]
During his visit to Washington DC, Paterson also visited The White House Writers Group, which describes itself as a “strategic communications” consulting company. Writing on Twitter, Paterson boasted to have met US government representatives, farmers and industry representatives and discussed “the downsides for the US of Chequers preventing a US-UK free trade deal and the spectacular gains which such a deal could provide for both countries.” [14], [15]
“The EU has single-mindedly pursued an overly prescriptive interpretation of the “Precautionary Principle,” smothering opportunities for innovation in thrall to the emotions of vocal activists rather than scientific evidence and advice.
“The green blob dominates thinking in Brussels, with generous grants given to green groups so that they will lobby it for regulations which then require large budgets to enforce.”
Paterson was introduced by Myron Ebell, the institute’s Director for Energy and Environment. Ebell led President Donald Trump’s transition team on energy issues, despite Ebell’s assertions he’d never actually met Trump, and is known for spreading climate science denial. [18]
March 2017
Paterson signed a letter to the BBC complaining about its coverage of the Brexit referendum. The letter argued the BBC was biased to the “remain” side of the campaign. [19],[20]
July 2016
Paterson declared his support for Andrea Leadsom in the Conservative party leadership contest following David Cameron’s resignation. Both Paterson and Leadsom have strong ties to a trans-Atlantic network of individuals and groups spreading climate disinformation and pushing for Brexit. [21]
May 2016
Signed a letter calling for the UK government to delay setting a target for its fifth carbon budget, as required by the Climate Change Act, as it would hurt the UK’s international economic competitiveness. [22]
January 2016
Paterson declared his intention to campaign for Brexit alongside brother-in-law and GWPF advisor Matt Ridley as part of the Business for Britain group. [23]
October 16, 2014
Shortly after being sacked from government Paterson delivered the annual lecture for climate science denial campaign group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which it was later revealed was partly written by brother-in-law and GWPF advisor Matt Ridley. [6], [7]
November 2013
Paterson met with the bosses of a number of oil and gas companies interesting in fracking in the UK. The Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra) decided to withhold an internal briefing it prepared for Paterson in advance of the meeting. [24]