Press Pack

Industry And The Climate Debate
Some of the world's wealthiest and most powerful companies have gathered forces behind a host of industry front groups in an increasingly intensive campaign to derail agreement on global climate protection.
Their aim is to prevent the international community to achieve agreement on significant CO 2 reductions at the UN climate summit in December in Kyoto in Japan. Household names such as Shell, Exxon, Chrysler, Ford, DuPont, and many others hide their real agenda behind lobbying organizations with such innocent names as the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) or the International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP). Other front groups are the American Petroleum Institute and the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA).
Most of the major multinational oil, coal and car companies are part of a huge disinformation effort that claims that there is no real need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or that it is too costly.
Their arguments are that cutting CO₂ emissions would ruin economies, would make national industry non-competitive, would be anti-free trade and put millions out of work
Meanwhile the industry groups have heavily invested in a public relations attempt to secure the status quo for their clients. They launched a series of full-page adverts during the second Earth Summit with the aim to influence governmental decision makers. Headlines included:
"The Global Climate Agreement. Lots of Pain. No Gain" [Washington Post]
"Americans Work Hard for What We Have, Mr. President. Don't Risk Our Economic Future" [New York Times]
A few weeks later, a further massive new U.S. TV and press advertising and internet campaign was launched, reportedly worth $13 million. Recent offerings claimed that "It's Not Global and It Won't Work." [Washington Post, 10 Sept, 1997]. This particular ad stated that there would be "severe restrictions" on energy use and aimed to drive a wedge between rich and poor countries to stall any global agreement.

"The Global Climate Agreement. Lots of Pain. No Gain" [Washington Post]

Front Group Spending (early 1990s)
In 1994 and 1995 the Global Climate Coalition spent more than 1 million dollars to down play the threat of climate change. It projected that it would spend nearly another million on the issue in 1996.
In 1993 alone, the American Petroleum Institute - one member of the GCC - paid $1.8 million to PR firm Burston Marsteller, to spearhead the defeat of a proposed tax on fossil fuels
[Source: The Heat is On, Ross Gelbspan]

The Fossil Fuel Dilemma: : Breaking Ranks
However, within its own ranks, the fossil fuel lobby is starting to admit that it has a dilemma. Companies which want to appear to be taking consumer concern for the environment seriously can no longer deny the contradiction between their own efforts to discover new stocks of fossil fuels and climate protection .
In May of this year, a Shell UK Executive, when publicly commenting on new oil exploration and atmospheric protection, admitted that "undoubtedly there is a dilemma".
Similarly , BP has already conceded that precautionary action based on climate science is now justified . Also in May 1997, BP publicly stated its intent to increase its solar sales to $1 billion over the next decade. The company is also on record in supporting taxes to cut energy waste to curb greenhouse emissions.
The Austrian oil company OMV has gone even further by publicly stating its support for the European Union climate position of a binding 15% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 compared to 1990 levels.
Taken together, these statements mark a certain shift in perspective for multinational oil companies.

"Americans Work Hard for What We Have, Mr. President. Don't Risk Our Economic Future" [New York Times]

The Progressive Business Lobby: A Growing Voice
In marked contrast to the vested interests of the fossil fuel lobby, other groups like the Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future; European Wind Energy Association and the International Cogeneration Alliance are amongst those voices calling for binding government action in Kyoto. These groups highlight the economic and job opportunities for businesses which provide renewable energy solutions to escalating CO₂ emissions
The insurance industry - given the dramatic increases in natural catastrophe insurance costs in recent years - has also become increasingly interested in the climate change debate. Between 1960 and the early 1990's, claims from wind storms alone rose from $0.5 billion to $11 billion a year, according to the IPCC chapter on the impact of climate change on the financial services sector. And industry sources argue that natural disaster losses, including earthquakes , could reach $30-60 billion per year by the end of the decade. It is quite feasible that a single hurricane alone could create losses of $ 50 billion in the US, with serious consequences for industry.

It is quite feasible that a single hurricane alone could create losses of $ 50 billion in the US, with serious consequences for industry.

Undermining the Science:
"The overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now a fact that global warming is for real.... In fact, there is ample evidence that human activities are already disrupting the global climate..." [President Bill Clinton, July 24th 1997]
The Global Climate Coalition and Western Fuels Association - i.e. the US coal lobby - are notorious in their spearheading the fossil fuel industry's long fight to discredit and undermine the science behind climate change, particularly that of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They rely on a small band of mainly U.S.science sceptics whose arguments are isolated and which in many cases have failed or in certain cases never even undergone rigorous scientific peer review .
Five of the best known US sceptics - Sallie Baliunas, Fred Singer, Robert Balling, Patrick Michaels and Sherwood Idso are also members of the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF) which promotes sceptics views in Europe.
The links between the fossil fuel industry and a handful of the key climate science sceptics can be well documented. Corporate sceptic campaigns are detailed in Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan book "The Heat is On".
An example of such a campaign, described by Gelbspan as "blatantly misleading" was that launched in 1991 by the Information Council on the Environment (ICE), a group of utility and coal companies. It's intention was to `reposition global warming as theory rather than fact'. The public relations firm involved intentionally targeted "older less educated men" and "young, low-income women". They used Balling, Michaels and Lindzen.
Throughout 1997, in the lead-up to Kyoto, sceptic activity has increased worldwide. Sceptics have either toured or been widely reported in Australia, Europe and South America in recent months in the United States.
The fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign plays heavily on concern about employment, the economy and so-called national interests. Convenient omissions include:
The economic opportunities for growth within the new solutions industries
The catastrophic costs of economic disruption caused by climate change impacts
The current market distortion caused by massive fossil fuel subsidies, which directly discriminates against solution industry competitiveness

The fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign plays heavily on concern about employment, the economy and so-called national interests

Growth potential of solutions industry
Solution industries such as solar and wind are considerably more labour intensive than conventional energy industries; hence significant job opportunities are being created in what is becoming a rapid growth area. Growth in the emerging solar photovoltaic industry is expected to create almost 300,000 jobs in the EU by 2010. In the US it is estimated that over 800,000 jobs could be created whilst reaching a 10% CO₂ reduction target by 2010..
Technologies such as those to produce efficiency-modified automobiles which cut fuel needs in half can be manufactured without closing existing manufacturing facilities
In a recent US case study, energy experts (1) concluded:

Less than 5% of US energy sector, heavy industry and energy-intensive transport sector jobs are likely to be affected by policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions
Overall, in the US far more jobs would be created than lost
Estimates of the economic benefits from cost effective CO₂ reductions are considerably higher than the payroll of the US coal industry, and funds could be injected into coal mining regions to manage the transition from carbon-intensive fuels

A statement signed by 2,500 US economists, including eight Nobel Laureates, concludes that greenhouse gas cutting policies need not harm US living standards but could in fact result in improvements in productivity (2)
In contrast, fossil-fuel industry sponsored economic models inaccurately exaggerate the dollar costs of action . The more common modeling distortions have been well documented and include ignoring the economic costs of climate change itself, exclude the opportunity for cost effective solutions and ignore the distortion to the energy market currently caused by fossil fuel subsidies.
In the US, for example Federal Energy Subsidies at the turn of the decade 58 % went to fossil fuels and a further 30% to nuclear energy.
A Report commissioned and published by Greenpeace earlier this year found that in Europe 10 times the subsidies were being given to fossil fuels and nuclear energy compared to renewables. IPCC estimates conclude that CO₂ emissions could be cut by 18% if energy subsidies were removed.
Footnotes:
(1) Florentine Krause, Costs and Benefits for Cutting US Carbon Emissions: A Critical Review of the Economic Arguments of the Fossil Fuel Lobby, May 1997
(2) Economists Statement on Climate Change, crafted by five distinguished economists including two Nobel Prize winners. Redefining Progress, February 1997

Industry And The Climate Debate Some of the world's wealthiest and most powerful companies have gathered forces behind a host of industry front groups in an increasingly intensive campaign to derail agreement on global climate protection. Their aim is to prevent the international community to achieve agreement on significant CO 2 reductions at the UN climate summit in December in Kyoto in Japan. Household names such as Shell, Exxon, Chrysler, Ford, DuPont, and many others hide their real agenda behind lobbying organizations with such innocent names as the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) or the International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP). Other front groups are the American Petroleum Institute and the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA). Most of the major multinational oil, coal and car companies are part of a huge disinformation effort that claims that there is no real need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or that it is too costly. Their arguments are that cutting CO₂ emissions would ruin economies, would make national industry non-competitive, would be anti-free trade and put millions out of work Meanwhile the industry groups have heavily invested in a public relations attempt to secure the status quo for their clients. They launched a series of full-page adverts during the second Earth Summit with the aim to influence governmental decision makers. Headlines included: "The Global Climate Agreement. Lots of Pain. No Gain" [Washington Post] "Americans Work Hard for What We Have, Mr. President. Don't Risk Our Economic Future" [New York Times] A few weeks later, a further massive new U.S. TV and press advertising and internet campaign was launched, reportedly worth $13 million. Recent offerings claimed that "It's Not Global and It Won't Work." [Washington Post, 10 Sept, 1997]. This particular ad stated that there would be "severe restrictions" on energy use and aimed to drive a wedge between rich and poor countries to stall any global agreement.	"The Global Climate Agreement. Lots of Pain. No Gain" [Washington Post]
Front Group Spending (early 1990s) In 1994 and 1995 the Global Climate Coalition spent more than 1 million dollars to down play the threat of climate change. It projected that it would spend nearly another million on the issue in 1996. In 1993 alone, the American Petroleum Institute - one member of the GCC - paid $1.8 million to PR firm Burston Marsteller, to spearhead the defeat of a proposed tax on fossil fuels [Source: The Heat is On, Ross Gelbspan]
The Fossil Fuel Dilemma: : Breaking Ranks However, within its own ranks, the fossil fuel lobby is starting to admit that it has a dilemma. Companies which want to appear to be taking consumer concern for the environment seriously can no longer deny the contradiction between their own efforts to discover new stocks of fossil fuels and climate protection . In May of this year, a Shell UK Executive, when publicly commenting on new oil exploration and atmospheric protection, admitted that "undoubtedly there is a dilemma". Similarly , BP has already conceded that precautionary action based on climate science is now justified . Also in May 1997, BP publicly stated its intent to increase its solar sales to $1 billion over the next decade. The company is also on record in supporting taxes to cut energy waste to curb greenhouse emissions. The Austrian oil company OMV has gone even further by publicly stating its support for the European Union climate position of a binding 15% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 compared to 1990 levels. Taken together, these statements mark a certain shift in perspective for multinational oil companies.	"Americans Work Hard for What We Have, Mr. President. Don't Risk Our Economic Future" [New York Times]
The Progressive Business Lobby: A Growing Voice In marked contrast to the vested interests of the fossil fuel lobby, other groups like the Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future; European Wind Energy Association and the International Cogeneration Alliance are amongst those voices calling for binding government action in Kyoto. These groups highlight the economic and job opportunities for businesses which provide renewable energy solutions to escalating CO₂ emissions The insurance industry - given the dramatic increases in natural catastrophe insurance costs in recent years - has also become increasingly interested in the climate change debate. Between 1960 and the early 1990's, claims from wind storms alone rose from $0.5 billion to $11 billion a year, according to the IPCC chapter on the impact of climate change on the financial services sector. And industry sources argue that natural disaster losses, including earthquakes , could reach $30-60 billion per year by the end of the decade. It is quite feasible that a single hurricane alone could create losses of $ 50 billion in the US, with serious consequences for industry.	It is quite feasible that a single hurricane alone could create losses of $ 50 billion in the US, with serious consequences for industry.
Undermining the Science: "The overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now a fact that global warming is for real.... In fact, there is ample evidence that human activities are already disrupting the global climate..." [President Bill Clinton, July 24th 1997] The Global Climate Coalition and Western Fuels Association - i.e. the US coal lobby - are notorious in their spearheading the fossil fuel industry's long fight to discredit and undermine the science behind climate change, particularly that of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They rely on a small band of mainly U.S.science sceptics whose arguments are isolated and which in many cases have failed or in certain cases never even undergone rigorous scientific peer review . Five of the best known US sceptics - Sallie Baliunas, Fred Singer, Robert Balling, Patrick Michaels and Sherwood Idso are also members of the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF) which promotes sceptics views in Europe. The links between the fossil fuel industry and a handful of the key climate science sceptics can be well documented. Corporate sceptic campaigns are detailed in Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan book "The Heat is On". An example of such a campaign, described by Gelbspan as "blatantly misleading" was that launched in 1991 by the Information Council on the Environment (ICE), a group of utility and coal companies. It's intention was to `reposition global warming as theory rather than fact'. The public relations firm involved intentionally targeted "older less educated men" and "young, low-income women". They used Balling, Michaels and Lindzen. Throughout 1997, in the lead-up to Kyoto, sceptic activity has increased worldwide. Sceptics have either toured or been widely reported in Australia, Europe and South America in recent months in the United States. The fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign plays heavily on concern about employment, the economy and so-called national interests. Convenient omissions include: The economic opportunities for growth within the new solutions industries The catastrophic costs of economic disruption caused by climate change impacts The current market distortion caused by massive fossil fuel subsidies, which directly discriminates against solution industry competitiveness	The fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign plays heavily on concern about employment, the economy and so-called national interests
Growth potential of solutions industry Solution industries such as solar and wind are considerably more labour intensive than conventional energy industries; hence significant job opportunities are being created in what is becoming a rapid growth area. Growth in the emerging solar photovoltaic industry is expected to create almost 300,000 jobs in the EU by 2010. In the US it is estimated that over 800,000 jobs could be created whilst reaching a 10% CO₂ reduction target by 2010.. Technologies such as those to produce efficiency-modified automobiles which cut fuel needs in half can be manufactured without closing existing manufacturing facilities In a recent US case study, energy experts (1) concluded: Less than 5% of US energy sector, heavy industry and energy-intensive transport sector jobs are likely to be affected by policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions Overall, in the US far more jobs would be created than lost Estimates of the economic benefits from cost effective CO₂ reductions are considerably higher than the payroll of the US coal industry, and funds could be injected into coal mining regions to manage the transition from carbon-intensive fuels A statement signed by 2,500 US economists, including eight Nobel Laureates, concludes that greenhouse gas cutting policies need not harm US living standards but could in fact result in improvements in productivity (2) In contrast, fossil-fuel industry sponsored economic models inaccurately exaggerate the dollar costs of action . The more common modeling distortions have been well documented and include ignoring the economic costs of climate change itself, exclude the opportunity for cost effective solutions and ignore the distortion to the energy market currently caused by fossil fuel subsidies. In the US, for example Federal Energy Subsidies at the turn of the decade 58 % went to fossil fuels and a further 30% to nuclear energy. A Report commissioned and published by Greenpeace earlier this year found that in Europe 10 times the subsidies were being given to fossil fuels and nuclear energy compared to renewables. IPCC estimates conclude that CO₂ emissions could be cut by 18% if energy subsidies were removed. Footnotes: (1) Florentine Krause, Costs and Benefits for Cutting US Carbon Emissions: A Critical Review of the Economic Arguments of the Fossil Fuel Lobby, May 1997 (2) Economists Statement on Climate Change, crafted by five distinguished economists including two Nobel Prize winners. Redefining Progress, February 1997