New Report Exposes Dark Money Funneling to Climate Change Denial Groups
The network of corporate-funded right wing think tanks in America is massive. The money that flows to these organizations is even more massive than the networks themselves, and it flows in almost total secrecy thanks to Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
These think tanks and astroturf groups are the leaders in climate change denial, spreading misinformation and corrupt data to the masses in order to downplay—and in many cases flat out deny—the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
And though we may not have the names of individual donors, a new report from The Guardian does a great job of laying out how much money is flowing to these climate change denial groups.
According to the report, a staggering sum of $125 million has been given to these organizations that deny climate change over the last three years. This money is used to fund industry-friendly groups who create and disseminate talking points, and support other public relations efforts and the right wing media echo chamber to promote climate change denial.
Another goal of this money is to undermine federal regulations aimed at curtailing emissions and other environmental health and safety standards. For example, The Guardian says that portions of this $125 million have been used to fight the Obama administration’s recent rules for coal-fired power plants that would put limits on the amount of greenhouses gases these plants are allowed to release into the atmosphere.
Of course, since these groups all participate in other areas of politics, it is difficult to conclude whether or not all of this money went directly to climate change denial, but The Guardian does confirm that all groups involved are actively engaged in climate change denial.
In order to find out where the money is going, The Guardian sifted through several years’ worth of tax filings. Many of these organizations are classified as 501(c)3 groups, which means that they are tax exempt and do not have to disclose the names of their donors.
What they uncovered is a massive web of climate denial being funded by a seemingly limitless “dark money ATM.”
A few of the groups listed in the report include:
- The Federalist Society, a networking group for conservative lawyers and justices which calls on states to reject the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate carbon pollution, received $8.7 million over the past three years.
- The State Policy Network, a network of ultra-conservative think tanks, received a total of $8.2 million over the last three years.
- Think tanks allied with the State Policy Network have worked with the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a pro-business lobby, which has sought legislation to penalize homeowners who install solar panels.
- The Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank whose climate expert opposes cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, took in $7.9 million over three years.
- The Heartland Institute, which sent a delegation to Rome in April to try to upstage meetings between the Pope and the UN Chief Ban Ki Moon on climate change, received $3.8 million.
- The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received $4.3 million over three years, claims on its website that climate change is its biggest program.
- The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, whose communications director is Marc Morano, took $3.7 million from donors in 2012—its most ever. A year later, however, the organization received $325,000.
Again, the source of the money is not clear, thanks to U.S. laws that allow donors to give anonymously to these organizations. But what is painfully clear is that the money flowing to climate change denial is only for the benefit of the dirty energy industry, as the rest of the country only stands to lose if corporations are allowed to continue to pollute without limits.
To learn more about Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, check out the analysis by DeSmog's Graham Readfearn exploring the dark money ATM in further detail.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The U.S. State Department, however, said that it trusted Japan's judgement.
But environmentalists argue that the government could have found a way to continue storing waste.
- Japan's New Environmental Minister Calls for Closing Down All ... ›
- Radiation Along Fukushima Rivers Up to 200 Times Higher Than ... ›
- Scientists Identify Tipping Points for Antarctica Glacier - EcoWatch ›
- Record Warm Water Measured Beneath Antarctica's 'Doomsday ... ›
- Antarctica's 'Doomsday Glacier' Is Starting to Crack - EcoWatch ›
By Jessica Corbett
"We need the same commitment to the climate story," the statement emphasizes.
Journalism should reflect what science says. https://t.co/MCbSRQMFch— The Nation (@The Nation)1618240621.0
But the only side we're taking here is the side of science. As journalists, we must ground our coverage in facts. We must describe reality as accurately as we can, undeterred by how our reporting may appear to partisans of any stripe and unintimidated by efforts to deny science or otherwise spin facts.
COVERING CLIMATE NOW STATEMENT ON THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY:
Journalism should reflect what the science says: the climate emergency is here.It's time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here.
This is a statement of science, not politics.
Thousands of scientists — including James Hansen, the NASA scientist who put the problem on the public agenda in 1988, and David King and Hans Schellnhuber, former science advisers to the British and German governments, respectively — have said humanity faces a "climate emergency."
Why "emergency"? Because words matter. To preserve a livable planet, humanity must take action immediately. Failure to slash the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make the extraordinary heat, storms, wildfires, and ice melt of 2020 routine and could "render a significant portion of the Earth uninhabitable," warned a recent Scientific American article.
The media's response to Covid-19 provides a useful model. Guided by science, journalists have described the pandemic as an emergency, chronicled its devastating impacts, called out disinformation, and told audiences how to protect themselves (with masks, for example).
We need the same commitment to the climate story.
We, the undersigned, invite journalists and news organizations everywhere to add your name to this Covering Climate Now statement on the climate emergency.
- Covering Climate Now
- Scientific American
- Columbia Journalism Review
- The Nation
- The Guardian
- Noticias Telemundo
- Al Jazeera English
- Asahi Shimbun
- La Repubblica
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
- The Media's Climate Coverage Is Improving, but Time Is Very Short ›
- UN Releases Scientific Blueprint to Address Climate Emergencies ... ›
- 'Climate Emergency' Named Oxford Word of the Year - EcoWatch ›
- New Zealand Declares Climate Emergency - EcoWatch ›
- New Bill Says Biden Must Declare a National Climate Emergency ... ›
- Microplastics Are Increasing in Our Lives, New Research Finds ... ›
- Microplastics Found in Human Organs for First Time - EcoWatch ›
- New Study: 15.5 Million Tons of Microplastics Litter Ocean Floor ... ›
By Michel Penke
Environmental Damage: 'Nature Has Been Overexploited'
"They are no longer viable for agricultural use," Hilpert said. "Nature has been overexploited."
But it is not only nature that suffers from the extraction of high-demand critical raw materials.
Dirty, Toxic, Radioactive: Working in the Mining Sector
South Africa has also been held up for turning a blind eye to the health impacts of mining.
Mining in Brazil: Replacing Nature, People, Land Rights
Reposted with permission from DW.