WhoaitsZ

http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...item_id=308563
Greenpeace obtains smoking-gun memo: White House/Exxon link
Conservative front group may have thanked White House for help in suing EPA

Tue 09 September 2003
UNITED STATES/Washington, DC

Did conservative elements in the White House provoke an Exxon front group to sue EPA to suppress a report on climate change? That's the question that two State Attorney Generals have asked US Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate, after Greenpeace uncovered a routine email in a Freedom of Information Act request.

In the email, Myron Ebell of the Exxon-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute writes to Phil Cooney, a senior official at the White House Council for Environmental Quality. He describes his plans to discredit an EPA study on climate change through a lawsuit. He states the need to "drive a wedge between the President and those in the Administration who think that they are serving the president's interests by publishing this rubbish." He notes his group is considering a call for the then-head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Christine Todd Whitman, to resign, and openly suggests that she'd make an appropriate "fall gal" if the administration is serious about getting back into bed with conservatives opposing action on climate change.

His memo to the US government official begins "Thanks for calling and asking for our help." (You can view the entire memo here.) http://dynamic.greenpeace.org/smoking-gun/CEImemo.swf

That statement, and the cosy, conspiratorial tone of the document was enough to make Richard Blumenthal, State Attorney General of Connecticut, and G. Steven Rowe, State Attorney General of Maine, demand an investigation by US Attorney General John Ashcroft into whether Cooney or other officials in the Bush administration solicited the Competitive Enterprise Institute's filing of the new lawsuit, as the memo certainly makes it appear.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute received nearly a half million dollars in funding last year from Exxon/Mobil, the world's largest oil company.

According to the two State Attorney Generals, the email obtained by Greenpeace

"reveals great intimacy between CEI and [Bush Administration official Cooney] in their strategizing about ways to minimize the problem of global warming. It also suggests that CEQ [the Council of Environmental Quality] may have been directly involved in efforts to undermine the United States' official reports, as well as the authority of the EPA Administrator.

We are concerned that the new litigation is an improper product of that close relationship, and we therefore ask that you investigate this."

Bush administration admits climate change real

At the end of May 2002, the United States submitted a report to the United Nations on Global warming. The report, the National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, was written by scientists from government, industry, universities and non-governmental organisations. While supporting President Bush's position of inaction against Carbon Dioxide emissions, it marked a stark departure in its description of the problem. The report forecast major impacts on the continental United States as well as the submersion of barrier islands, and called for action to minimise the economic consequences of these events, while saying it was simply too late to stop them through a program of rigorous emission reductions.

But in the view of Exxon and its pals, the report's conclusion, that climate change posed a significant risk and was caused by man-made emissions, was at odds with their agenda to sell more oil, and the agenda that Bush has been pursuing on their behalf to question the reality of climate change and attempt to scupper the Kyoto protocol. The government report caused a media storm with headlines across the world like "Climate Changing, US says in report" from the New York Times, which clearly caused the call for help from the White House to the CEI.

When Exxon talks, Bush listens

Two days after the memo from Ebell was received, Bush repudiated the report as having come from "the bureaucracy." This was a further blow to embattled EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman, who announced her resignation in May of this year.

The same administration that told us that "Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas, and VX agent" is still trying to say that "the science on climate change is inconclusive."

It certainly isn't inconclusive to climate scientists. The National Academy of Sciences said in 2001 that "There is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past twenty years."

No credible scientist today questions that climate change is happening or that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the major contributor.

What's surprising is that despite Bush's refusal to submit the Kyoto treaty for ratification, his efforts to undermine other country's support for the treaty, and his failure to take any meaningful action whatsoever on climate change, he still hasn't done enough for the CEI/Exxon agenda. CEI complains that:

"[The Bush Administration] has managed, whether through incompetence or intention, to create one disaster after another and then to expect its allies to clean up the mess."

We'd actually concur with the first part of that statement. Unfortunately, by failing to act on climate change, the administration is leaving it to future generations to clean up a much bigger mess than a few disgruntled oil companies.

-------

i'm not going to lie and pretend to know what everything above means. i was never good at remembering who did what and why.

however, this creeps me out and i hope this e-mail gets media attention.

sigh.

2wolves

"Trust me, it's all one big typo. "

The above may be their only defense.

2Wolves

maximusveritas

I'm still waiting for some major news sources to pick this up. Until then, I'm not sure we can trust the source, especially when they don't even give the full text of the memo.

JBX

Greenpeace is another terroist org. Kyoto treaty is a joke.

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

Zeld2.0

And if its true you would still deny it?

Don't ignore whats possible, if its true id like to see what happens and those who deserve punishment getting it.

Arc101

Yep - after all they don't agree with Bush so they must be !

filtherton

I'm actually really surprised that people in the oil industry have that kind of access to the administration's ear. LOeffinL
The real joke is what we're going to leave for our children and our children's children. I'm sure, though, that future generations will look upon the profit motive as reaonable justification for the destuction of the world as their parents knew it.

edited for sarcasm

eple

Let's all play three little fucking monkeys and ignore the enviromental problems of the world despite decades of scientific research done by the worlds leading scientist in the UN and countless proof of increased global warming. After all, an illiterate republican who are the former CEO of an oil company said it wasn't that bad.

rgr22j

The 2,500 scientists that helped contribute to the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted in 1995 that the evidence of global warming thus far "cannot be considered as compelling evidence of cause-and-effect link between anthropogenic forcing and changes in the Earth's surface temperature." In summary, there is no conclusive proof.

Furthermore, "Seventeen thousand scientists (half of whom are trained in physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology or biochemistry) recently signed a petition written by Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, declaring that there is no compelling evidence to justify reducing greenhouse gas emissions at all." (Cato Institute)

This is not to say that global warming is a real phenomenon; it exists, but it is not clear if it is a response to human activity or simply part of the natural cycle. 30 years ago the fear was that the earth was entering a cooling cycle; it has not. Human activity, of course, has some effect. But how much? A dozen Europes and a dozen Americas would not have prevented the Ice Age.

So make that an illiterate Republican, a CEO of an oil company, and 19,500 scientists.

-- Alvin

SkanK0r

Soooo... are you going to attempt to actually MAKE a point? Stuff like this bothers me. I don't know why you'd consider Greenpeace a terrorist organization - frankly, I don't know mucha bout them at all. I'd be happy to listen to your argument, if you have one.


I kinda lost it, so lebell had to edit me

The_Dude

I'm pretty sure that JBX meant it sarcastically.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

SkanK0r

If that's the case, I'll apologize and eat my crow. I'll let him respond for himself though before I do!

(not that I don't appreciate your post)

eple

UN. Climate panel website:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Have a pleasant read if you woud like to get your head out of your ass on this interesting issue.

Fun facts:
A few weeks ago, the panel reported new estimates, as they discovered that the current estimates on climate changes were too low. New estimates predict an increase of tempereature between 5-8 degrees celsius, and an increase in sea level ranging between 05 up to 3 metres within 100 years. This would make 200 000 000 humans homeless.

2/3 of the world's refugees are fleeing because of disturbances in climate, which can be related to human emmissions.

In 1998, more storms, floods, drough and other climate-change related catastrophes were recorded than in the entire 1800's. Most scientsist point to human emmissions.

The normal pattern of pre-ice age global heating have been breached, according to scientits recording data from glaciers. The normal peak have been reached, and the heating process continues, even though the next ice-age is still reasonably far away. Scientists point to Human emmissions.

As a member of the national board in the norwegian youth enviromental organization Natur og Ungdom (nature and youth), I study these numbers quite carefully. All numbers and estimates are taken from UN-assigned reports. I would be surprised if you could prove that the UN are doing this research for their own profit.

Conclamo Ludus

So that's an illiterate republican, a CEO of an oil company, and 17,000 scientists. We need a scorecard for this.

I have to go on Alvin on this one. Although I haven't finished filing through the UN report. I believe climate change is happening, and I believe that human emissions can add to it, but only slightly. I'm still perusing all the material though. It seems ridiculous that there is not a scientific consensus on this. That's what happens when politics and science meet. Everyones running around trying to scientifically prove what they already believe. Everyone's got their agendas.

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

eple

So what is the UN's agenda then? Earning money from a reduction in emissions of climate gases?

Food Eater Lad

The UN? Arent they that organisation run by dictators and oppressors of human rights? Didnt they elect Libya as head of the Human Rights commission? Didnt they botch almost every peacekeeping mission? Do people still listen to them?

eple

Wow....that was ignorant.

The UN isn't perfect, But I'd rather believe that the scientific research they have initiated and supported is not made to gain some dictator. Could someone please show what the UN is gaining of fronting a reduction in human emmissions of climate gases? As far as I can see all we gain is mistrust (yes, I say we. Norway is a member just like most every country in the world YES THAT INCLUDES THE US WHICH HAS VETO-RIGHTS).

rgr22j

I would really appreciate it if you kept ad-homenim attacks out of the discussion. Directed at me or at anyone else, it's inappropriate in this forum.

Back to the current discussion, you misread my point. I realize now that there's a typo in the following quote :

The typo is that I meant to say: "This is not to say that global warming is NOT a real phenomenon" (correction in CAPS). In the context, however, this should have been obvious. Apologies, English is not my first language.

So, we agree, there is no doubt that global warming exists: this much is clear. However, as I directly quote from the IPCC:

Scientists believe it has something to do with global warming, but there is no conclusive proof. You interpreted that scientists "point" to global warming, you "point to" or it "can be related" but as I quoted directly from the report, there is no clear cut evidence that this is the case.

I would also caution you on using so-called climate models as proof; I work with weather modelers (and indeed used to be a modeler myself, just not of weather) and so far none of the existing models has ever come close to being able to predict the recorded temperatures of the 20th century. In modeling, if the models can't even predict the given test data, we don't rely on it for anything at all. It's useless.

Furthermore, "recorded" temperatures or "recorded" events always come with some error. Temperature readings today are much more accurate than they were in the 1800s, and we track more weather events than we did 200 years ago. When you are dealing with tenths of degrees, it's not a good idea to be relying on temperatures read off of sight-estimated mercury thermometers. Where was it taken? Who did it? Cities are hotter than the country-side, and New York City (for example) has grown much more dense than in 1800. This also means that, as a result of urbanization, the country-side would be cooler (all other things constant).

How many storms over how many continents are we talking about? In 1800 only 16 states had joined the Union. By 1899 we still didn't have five states, including Hawaii and Alaska, both of which are the recipients of rather harsh climate-related weather. You would not convince anyone that the weather tracking in 1899 was anywhere near as sophisticated as the ones in 1998. Weather satellites alone give us an incomparable breadth.

There are too many variables to count, and relying on unknown and unreliable data, or busted models, is not scientifically a good idea. You may be part of a youth board, but I was a scientist. Believe me when I say that it is still too early to make a conclusive statement. If you don't believe me, ask any of my 19,500 colleagues.

-- Alvin

eple

That could be said about any other scientific theory. Of course there aren't any rock-solid proofs to swoop all doubt away. This is more about being safe rather than sorry. I am sorry for being harsh earlier, but I really believe more in those who say "we have reason to believe that unnatural and damaging climate changes could be preventet with reductions in human emissions" than the ones saying "this is not based on 100% solid proof which can never be countered, thus we continue the emissions and hope things work out."

I thought the US was all for pre-emptive actions? If Bush could go to war over dodgy evidence, he could surely spend a similar amount securing the world against climate change? Isn't the threat of 200 000 000 people being forced to flee their homes and eco-systems and crops all over the world being destroyed mutch bigger than the threat of some moustached dictator with some boring old gas?.

Any comments?

rgr22j

No, it cannot. There is significantly more evidence for the law of gravity than there is for human-derived global warming. You will not find 19,500 credible scientists who say that there is no conclusive proof for the effect of the earth on gravity; however we have 17,000 scientists from the National Academy of the Sciences and the UN who say we cannot definitively link human emissions with global warming.

The point is not to say that the theory might be true, but we should have a measured response until more information comes to light. For example, there is some evidence that mobile telephones can cause cancer, but we do not ban them all. There was significant evidence in the 1970s that the earth was going to go into a cooling phase, but we did not start firing up coal plants left and right to try to "reheat" the earth.


First off, you should see some of my other posts discussing Bush's "dodgy" evidence. Not true. If anything, Bush and Blair have come out ahead in a superior position, especially with Andrew Gilligan's recent retraction of all of his specific accusations.

It's also estimated that were the world to revert to environmentally-friendly "organic" farming, there would be enough food for only half the population. Isn't the threat of 3 000 000 000 people starving to death all over the world a much bigger threat than making people feel good that the environment is supposedly cleaner?

This is the problem with "environmentalists": too much blind fanaticism, too little science. Let me give you an example. The Bush Administration was castigated by environmentalists for "relaxing" the rules on SuperFund cleanup. Previously each site that was contaminated had to be cleaned up 100%, no exceptions. The Bush administration relaxed it so it had to be cleaned up within reason. As with many things in life, cleaning up these sites suffers from the law of diminishing returns: it takes more and more money to get closer to 100%, it is not a linear relationship. For example, it might take the same amount of money to clean up the first 90% as it does the last 10%.

So what was happening is very few sites ended up being cleaned up because of the exorbitant amount of money it required to get that last 1%. By relaxing this restriction, Bush allowed the cleaning crews get what economists say is the "most bang for the buck": we clean up 10 sites up to 90% instead of 5 sites at 100%. The environment receives a net gain. Sure, Bush cannot claim that he cleaned it up 100%, but he sacrificed the political headline for a better environment. However, he was roundly demonized by the "environmentalists" who wouldn't know science from Shakespeare if it hit them in the face.

We need a measured response, not knee-jerk fanaticism. If you really wanted to make a difference, we should start by aggressively promoting hybrid vehicles in terms of household savings per year (as Toyota is currently doing). I would tax SUVs as luxury vehicles (like Benz and BMW in the USA) and turn around and give those monies back to minivan owners.

I would turn the automotive union (the Detroit factory workers getting rich off of SUVs) out on their rear ends and split the bipartisan support for SUVs in Congress. UAW supports SUVs to Democrats, the Big Three supports Republicans. And you wonder why we never get any real SUV reform. You should seriously consider taking off your anti-Bush hat and target real, specific offenders. It seems you only have suspicions towards American conservatives. Rid yourself of this perception.

-- Alvin

eple

U got me there, Bush-boy.

Thank god for the Ignore-option.

rgr22j

Again, back to the personal attacks. Perhaps you did not read the bottom of my post where I was proposing some solutions, with both parties as offenders. Perhaps you have not read any of my other posts where I specifically stated I did not vote for Bush? Yes, you read that right, I did not support Bush in his election. I have never voted for a Republican. I have met and shaken hands with Bill Clinton.

Who is the blind fanatic now?

Instead you choose to copy-and-paste a very small fraction of my post instead of responding with substantive debate. You scattershot inchoate sarcasm rather than discuss.

Please, do me the favor of adding me to your ignore-list. If you are willing to debate, I am here. If not, might I suggest that the "Is W. Stupid or Evil?" thread be safer and more to your liking?

-- Alvin

EDIT: "Is W. Stupid or Evil?", not "Is W. Evil or Stupid?"

eple

I guess the fanatic would be the one signing petitions in mobs trying to deny science as soon as it becomes uncomfortable. Oh noes, reducing emissions with 60-80 % will hurt us, it can't be!

Sorry, but we need to be safe, not sorry, end of arguement as far as I, and the UN are conserned. The fanatics would be the ones with their heads in the sand and their ears covered who proceed to launch attacks on those with care and engagement for the future of our speices. Climate change could prove very damaging to human culture and civilization. I would rather see us spending what it takes to reduce the emissions, and find that all we got was some non-polluting non-short range damaging energy, than just ignore the data baceuse of fear and find ourselves threatened by global warming. The war in Iraq was way more expensive than creating ecological sources of power would be, and the consequenses of climate change may be much worse than some Muslim with some gas, as I have previously said.

And don't come bragging about Clinton to me, American democrats are the political match of Norwegian extreme right-wingers, while republicans blow the scale. And we have a way higher rate of living than you as well. Clinton was anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, I don't believe he has any more to add to the enviromental debate than Bush.

rgr22j

Ah, much better. Thank you for remaining civil. It is interesting you define a fanatic as one signing petitions in mobs denying science. In this case, aren't the ones in the 19,500 strong mob scientists themselves, in part sponsored by the National Academy of Scientists? This puts them in an ironic paradox, scientists trying to deny science.


I agree. Safe, not sorry. I would rather we take reasonable, measured responses to curb environmental damage and find that we saved people's jobs and livelihoods rather than ignore the data because of fear and find ourselves in economic disaster. As I mentioned in my post discussing the Democratic candidates for president in 2004 (my blind fanaticism again), history is always the best teacher.

In the 1990s, there was a huge campaign against fur, and the result of the backlash was a massive drop in demand for fur worldwide. The hardest hit was small village in Canada who for decades, by all accounts, as humanely as possible, made their lives trapping and selling fur. The drop destroyed their livelihood and just recently they were debating allowing an oil company to lay an oil pipeline through their village, possibly disrupting the natural wildlife. This is described in the New York Times, a lesson in making reasonable, measured responses instead of foisting impulsive, emotional ideology on others.

The New York Times also recently featured the wind energy battle; sure it is clean and renewable energy, but the massive windmills (having seen many in person, they truly are wondrously large) disrupt local wind patterns and quite often hit and kill birds just passing through. What helped solve one environmental problem created another. What should have been a practical and acceptable solution to all parties ended up being ramrodded into law in the name of the "environment" and creating a bigger mess than before. Again, too much politics, not enough science.


Don't come bragging to me about Europe. I will never return to Europe for good reason. Perhaps Europeans, in general, are too far left for their own good? I have participated in politics in almost every continent in the world and I find it rather selfish and conceited to automatically think that Europeans are the "centrists" and Americans are right wing extremists. But that is another discussion.

Europeans do not have a higher rate of living; ask your neighbors the Swedes what their government says of the relative rate of living amongst the opprossed and poorest third of Americans (African-Americans) and middle class Swedes.

I am off on a tangent, though. Originally, you called me Bush-boy, and I merely pointed out that I consistenly supported his opponents, a fact of which I have announced in these forums many times. It would be an oxymoron to be an Bush-opponent-supporter-yet-Bush-fanatic, now wouldn't it?

-- Alvin

eple

-> Norway is not a member of the EU, I am a Norwegian, not a member of some far-fetched megelomaniac idea of a federal Europe (which I believe is what they are planning). Norway has nothing to answer for European problems.

-> sure, windmills can be ugly, but aestetics is not as important as the enviroment in my book. Coal-plants or nuclear plants aren't pretty either. You need to spot the difference between minor local problems and global consequense. The world's temperature are more important than a farmer's backyard. You have to scramble some eggs... Noone is finding perfect solutions here, If we would, we wouldn't be arguing would we? It just so happens new alternative energy such as wind, wave, solar, boi and so on are the best known source of energy when it comes to global emissions.

-> fur has shit-all to do with enviromentalism, that is animal rights, I don't give a shit about PETA if that's your consern.

-> The enviroment is too important to be ignored. And possible solutions to the likely occurance of increased global warming is way to important to be neglected on behalf of politicians and scientists who lack the minerals to face the challenge. The possible loss is far too great.

-> I trust the UN on this point, and I still want an answer to what profit they might gain from lying to the world about this. Any suggestions?

Lebell

???

eple, where are you getting your facts from? First BFC and now Clinton?

It would really help your credibility while bashing America and American culture if you knew something about it.

As to coal fired power plants, I believe China currently leads the world in green house gas emmissions due to coal fired power plants... and China is specifically exempt under the Kyoto Protocols.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

eple

When it comes to China, it is harder for a growing economy to reduce their emissions. We can't base the reductions in climate gases on poor countries remaining poor. In the future, however, it is not unlikely that the growing wealth of China might create pollution greater than that of the US.

Still, the US are the biggest polluter, standing for around 25% of the global emissions. China's greatest project in creating energy lately has been through water-plants. Even though the three valley project were a disaster to the local enviroment, It won't pollute the air...