Quantcast

Dumping ALEC Is Not Enough to Combat Climate Change

Climate

BP has withdrawn support to ALEC, a group known for misrepresenting climate science, but appearances can be deceptive. Oil, gas and coal companies remain firmly behind climate disinformation campaigns.

Some of the largest fossil fuel companies—now publicly accepting mainstream climate science—continue to support climate denial through influential lobbying groups and trade associations. Photo credit: Union of Concerned Scientists

The oil giant BP has announced that they will no longer fund the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a lobbying group that routinely misrepresents climate science to U.S. state legislators. It is the latest sign that some of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies appear to be warming to the overwhelming evidence that the unabated use of their products poses severe risks of disrupting the climate.

Last month, BP and Royal Dutch Shell announced their support for shareholder resolutions calling on them to commit to reduce heat-trapping emissions, invest in renewable energy, and show how their current business model would hold up against the strict limits on future emissions needed to limit the risk of major climate disruption.

Shell chief executive Ben van Buerden recently stated that “climate change is real and a threat we want to act upon. We are not aligning with skeptics.”

Even ExxonMobil, which spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to fund groups that spread disinformation about climate science, now prominently acknowledges on their website that “rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems.”

But appearances can be deceiving.

For one, BP still channels funds through its political action committee to climate science-denying U.S. policymakers such as Senator James Inhofe, chair of the Senate’s environment and public works committee. While such direct contributions to politicians are a matter of public record, companies continue to sow climate doubt and influence climate policy in ways that are far more opaque.

For instance, recently released documents show that ExxonMobil gave more than $75,000 between 2008 and 2010 to secretly support the work of Willie Soon, a contrarian climate researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, well after the company announced it would halt such funding. Soon’s research has sought to downplay the human influence on global warming.

This follows revelations that Southern Company, one of the largest utilities in the U.S., spent $400,000 between 2006 and 2015 to fund Soon, supporting his research, Congressional testimony, and other “deliverables” while specifying that its funding be disclosed only with express company permission.

Robert Gehri, the Southern Company employee who authorized this funding was one of a dozen industry representatives who, on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, created a $6 million campaign in 1998 that misled the public about climate science. Among other strategies, he oversaw the covert funding of “independent” scientists.

Some of the largest fossil fuel companies—now publicly accepting mainstream climate science—continue to support climate denial through influential lobbying groups and trade associations. Shell, Chevron and ExxonMobil still fund ALEC, which misleadingly describes climate change as “a historical phenomenon for which debate will continue over the significance of natural and [human-caused] contributions.”

With their support, ALEC promotes “model legislation” to repeal state renewable energy standards and roll back other climate and energy policies.

Shell, BP, Chevron and ExxonMobil are also members and funders of the API and the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). Late last year, a leaked presentation from WSPA revealed a stealth campaign to block climate policies in California by backing a constellation of astroturf groups with names such as the “California Drivers Alliance” and “Californians Against Higher Taxes.”

Exactly how much fossil fuel companies have spent to support disinformation remains shrouded in secrecy, in part because they are not required to report their political and public relations spending. Robert Brulle, a social scientist at Drexel University, estimates that hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed from corporations, ideological foundations and groups that oppose climate policy and often sow doubt about mainstream climate science.

Such spending is big money in politics, but it pales in comparison to the staggering costs of climate change. New York City alone estimates it will cost nearly $20 billion over a decade to protect its citizens against rising seas and more extreme weather. The bipartisan Risky Business Project estimates that over the next 15 years, sea level rise and storm surge are expected to increase damage from East and Gulf Coast storms by $2 billion to $3.5 billion. They also conclude that more extreme heat could cause corn, wheat, soy and cotton yields to decline 10 percent or more in some southern and midwestern counties.

Who will pay these and other costs of preparing for now inevitable changes? Right now, by default, this responsibility falls largely to taxpayers.

But shouldn’t fossil fuel companies bear some responsibility to pay for the harms resulting from their products?

Tobacco companies were found liable for damage from cigarettes. Those companies also deceived the public about the realities of scientific research on smoking. In fact, they funded some of the same scientists and groups fossil fuel companies have relied on to spread misinformation. The tobacco companies were held accountable, in part, because they colluded to deceive the public and policymakers about the risks their products caused.

Similarly, after scientific evidence on the cancer-causing risks of asbestos was established, producers of asbestos and manufacturers of products containing it were also held liable for damages.

The magnitude of the fossil energy industry’s contribution to the climate problem is enormous. Researchers have found that just 90 entities—including the world’s largest investor-owned fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP and Shell—are responsible for extracting the coal, oil and gas that have produced about two-thirds of all industrial carbon pollution. For decades, these same companies have sought to obscure the risks of using their products and sought to deny and delay regulation—increasing the risks society faces from a changing climate.

It is not too late for fossil fuel companies to take responsible action. Shell and BP’s support for shareholder resolutions calling on them to invest in low-carbon energy is a first step. But investors—and society at large—should expect far more.

We should expect fossil fuel companies to stop supporting climate disinformation and distance themselves publicly from trade associations and lobbying groups that do. We should expect them to make their political spending transparent. And we should expect them to pay a fair share of the costs of limiting the damages from climate change, which a more expedited transition to low carbon economy could have—and should have—avoided.

This post originally appeared as an op-ed in The Guardian. Peter Frumhoff is the director of scientist and policy at Union of Concerned Scientists. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of the history of science at Harvard University. 

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Renowned Scientists Urge Museums to Drop Climate-Denier Donors, BP Dumps ALEC

Why Is Climate Denier David Koch on Board of Nation's Leading Natural History Museums

9 Climate-Denying Republicans Who Might Run for President

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Protesters holding signs in solidarity with the Wet'suwet'en Nation outside the Canadian Consulate in NYC. The Indigenous Peoples Day NYC Committee (IPDNYC), a coalition of 13 Indigenous Peoples and indigenous-led organizations gathered outside the Canadian Consulate and Permanent Mission to the UN to support the Wet'suwet'en Nation in their opposition to a Coastal GasLink pipeline scheduled to enter their traditional territory in British Columbia, Canada. Erik McGregor / LightRocket / Getty Images

Tensions are continuing to rise in Canada over a controversial pipeline project as protesters enter their 12th day blockading railways, demonstrating on streets and highways, and paralyzing the nation's rail system

Read More
padnpen / iStock / Getty Images

Yet another reason to avoid the typical western diet: eating high-fat, highly processed junk food filled with added sugars can impair brain function and lead to overeating in just one week.

Read More
Sponsored
Horseshoe Bend (seen above) is a horseshoe-shaped meander of the Colorado River in Page, Arizona. didier.camus / Flickr / public domain

Millions of people rely on the Colorado River, but the climate crisis is causing the river to dry up, putting many at risk of "severe water shortages," according to new research, as The Guardian reported.

Read More
An alarming sign of an impending drought is the decreased snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountain range, as seen here in Christmas Valley, South Lake Tahoe, California on Feb. 15, 2020. jcookfisher / CC BY 2.0

California is headed toward drought conditions as February, typically the state's wettest month, passes without a drop of rain. The lack of rainfall could lead to early fire conditions. With no rain predicted for the next week, it looks as if this month will be only the second time in 170 years that San Francisco has not had a drop of rain in February, according to The Weather Channel.

The last time San Francisco did not record a drop of rain in February was in 1864 as the Civil War raged.

"This hasn't happened in 150 years or more," said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA's Institute of the Environment and Sustainability to The Guardian. "There have even been a couple [of] wildfires – which is definitely not something you typically hear about in the middle of winter."

While the Pacific Northwest has flooded from heavy rains, the southern part of the West Coast has seen one storm after another pass by. Last week, the U.S. Drought Monitor said more Californians are in drought conditions than at any time during 2019, as The Weather Channel reported.

On Thursday, the U.S. Drought Monitor said nearly 60 percent of the state was abnormally dry, up from 46 percent just last week, according to The Mercury News in San Jose.

The dry winter has included areas that have seen devastating fires recently, including Sonoma, Napa, Lake and Mendocino counties. If the dry conditions continue, those areas will once again have dangerously high fire conditions, according to The Mercury News.

"Given what we've seen so far this year and the forecast for the next few weeks, I do think it's pretty likely we'll end up in some degree of drought by this summer," said Swain, as The Mercury News reported.

Another alarming sign of an impending drought is the decreased snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountain range. The National Weather Service posted to Twitter a side-by-side comparison of snowpack from February 2019 and from this year, illustrating the puny snowpack this year. The snow accumulated in the Sierra Nevadas provides water to roughly 30 percent of the state, according to NBC Los Angeles.

Right now, the snowpack is at 53 percent of its normal volume after two warm and dry months to start the year. It is a remarkable decline, considering that the snowpack started 2020 at 90 percent of its historical average, as The Guardian reported.

"Those numbers are going to continue to go down," said Swain. "I would guess that the 1 March number is going to be less than 50 percent."

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center forecast that the drier-than-average conditions may last through April.

NOAA said Northern California will continue deeper into drought through the end of April, citing that the "persistent high pressure over the North Pacific Ocean is expected to continue, diverting storm systems to the north and south and away from California and parts of the Southwest," as The Weather Channel reported.

As the climate crisis escalates and the world continues to heat up, California should expect to see water drawn out of its ecosystem, making the state warmer and drier. Increased heat will lead to further loss of snow, both as less falls and as more of it melts quickly, according to The Guardian.

"We aren't going to necessarily see less rain, it's just that that rain goes less far. That's a future where the flood risk extends, with bigger wetter storms in a warming world," said Swain, as The Guardian reported.

The Guardian noted that while California's reservoirs are currently near capacity, the more immediate impact of the warm, dry winter will be how it raises the fire danger as trees and grasslands dry out.

"The plants and the forests don't benefit from the water storage reservoirs," said Swain, as The Mercury News reported. "If conditions remain very dry heading into summer, the landscape and vegetation is definitely going to feel it this year. From a wildfire perspective, the dry years do tend to be the bad fire years, especially in Northern California."

New and recent books explore how we can effectively respond to climate change while enhancing our health and happiness. Kei Uesugi / DigitalVision / Getty Images

A warm day in winter used to be a rare and uplifting relief.

Now such days are routine reminders of climate change – all the more foreboding when they coincide with news stories about unprecedented wildfires, record-breaking "rain bombs," or the accelerated melting of polar ice sheets.

Where, then, can one turn for hope in these dark months of the year?

Read More