In cap and trade fight, environmentalists had spending edge over opponents, new report finds

Apr 25, 2011

New research challenges the commonly-held view that cap and trade legislation failed because of the spending advantages of opponents and false balance in news coverage. The report, "Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate," was released today by American University Professor Matthew Nisbet.

"There is a tendency among and scientists to blame political inaction on the spending advantage enjoyed by conservatives and on false balance in media coverage," says Nisbet. "However, this analysis shows that the effort by environmentalists to pass cap and trade may have been the best financed political cause in history and that news coverage of climate change overwhelmingly reflected the consensus view among scientists."

As leaders and experts consider next steps in the climate change debate, the report is intended to inform decision making. The report's analysis finds that:

  • In 2009, the 45 national environmental groups working on climate change generated $1.7 billion in revenue and spent $394 million on climate change and efforts. In comparison, the 42 conservative think tanks, groups and industry associations aligned against cap and trade legislation generated about $900 million in revenue and spent $259 million opposing action on climate change and energy.
  • Limited in what they could spend directly on lobbying, environmental groups augmented their legislative influence through alliances with several dozen of the world's largest corporations. This alliance allowed them to close the gap in spending on direct lobbying over past legislative battles. In 2009, six of the world's 15 largest publicly traded corporations supported the cap and trade bill.
  • In 2009 and 2010, at The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN.com, nine out of 10 news and opinion articles reflected the consensus view among scientists that climate change is real and human-caused. At Politico during this period, at least seven out of 10 articles portrayed the consensus view. Only at The Wall Street Journal did this trend not hold up, yet the difference in portrayal was confined to the opinion pages.
  • In December 2009, as the Copenhagen meetings took place, approximately 20 percent of articles at the five news organizations mentioned the debate over Climategate (the story first was reported on Nov. 20). In the months following, The Wall Street Journal continued to focus on the story while the other news organizations did not.
The report also examines the decision making of nine aligned major foundations, led by ClimateWorks, which funded a network of organizations advocating for a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

"Contrary to conventional wisdom, these major foundations have been as strategic in targeting specific policy outcomes as even conservative philanthropists such as the Koch brothers," says Nisbet. "Yet this focus and strategy has overlooked several key dimensions of societal action."

Nisbet estimates that the nine foundations distributed at least $368 million between 2008 and 2010 to organizations working on climate change and energy policy. More than half this funding was given to just 25 groups, 14 of which were national leaders in the effort to pass cap and trade legislation. As the top recipient of funding, nearly one out of every 10 dollars ($34.6 million) went to the Bipartisan Policy Center, exceeding the $31.3 million distributed by Koch-affiliated foundations to all conservative organizations active on climate change between 2005 and 2009. (Exxon Mobil gave $8.9 million during this period).

Yet the 50-page strategy document that guided the foundations' investments, according to Nisbet's analysis, was notable for its "absence of any discussion of social, political or cultural dimensions of the challenge." As his analysis shows, there were comparatively limited amounts of funding focused on the role of government in promoting new technology and innovation. Nor was there equivalent investment in adaptation, health, equity, justice, job creation or economic development.

Nisbet's report additionally reviews the likely causes for the decline in public concern and belief in climate change in recent years. As he finds:

  • The peak in public concern over climate change that occurred in 2006 and 2007 came during years that marked a decade low in unemployment. Opinion trends show historically that concern with the environment declines appreciably with a rise in unemployment levels, as was the case in 2009 and 2010. Studies by economists also demonstrate strong linkages between individual perceptions of climate change and unemployment levels at the state and county level.
  • Republicans are deservedly blamed for promoting polarization on the issue, yet admired Democratic leaders also shoulder responsibility. Since 2002, Al Gore has consistently sought to mobilize progressives politically, pairing his messages about climate science with strong criticisms of Republicans. Research suggests that these messages – and the corresponding response from Republicans – have led to wide differences in views on climate change between Democrats and Republicans.
  • Today, Gore remains the public figure most closely associated with both climate science and policy action. Yet as of 2010, only 44 percent of Americans had a favorable impression of Gore, a level equivalent to that of George W. Bush (45 percent) and Sarah Palin (44 percent).
  • Belief in the reality and risks of climate change are also linked to the proposed policy solutions. Among conservatives, studies show that answers to polling questions about climate science are much more likely to be indirect reflections of opinions about cap and trade policy and an international agreement.
Nisbet also examines how ideology, just as it does among the general public, shapes the views and the interpretations of advocates. Analyzing a representative survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Nisbet concludes that a strongly one-sided ideological outlook likely leads many scientists and environmentalists to overlook how economic trends and their own actions might diminish public concern, and instead focus on presumed flaws in media coverage or the activities of conservatives. Moreover, as organizations such as the AAAS train and encourage their members to engage in public outreach, most participants are likely to view politics very differently from the audiences with which they are trying to communicate, a challenge that merits greater attention as part of these trainings.

Explore further: Rising anger as Nicaragua canal to break ground

More information: The report can be found at www.ClimateShiftProject.org

Provided by American University

4.5 /5 (2 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

American opinion cools on global warming

Jan 27, 2010

Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to a national survey released today by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.

US scientists to speak out on climate change

Nov 08, 2010

Hundreds of US scientists are joining a mass effort to speak out on climate change, experts said Monday after skeptics gained political ground with last week's Republican gains in Congress.

Recommended for you

Rising anger as Nicaragua canal to break ground

3 hours ago

As a conscripted soldier during the Contra War of the 1980s, Esteban Ruiz used to flee from battles because he didn't want to have to kill anyone. But now, as the 47-year-old farmer prepares to fight for ...

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

Dec 20, 2014

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

New challenges for ocean acidification research

Dec 19, 2014

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

User comments : 36

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2011
I would estimate all governments combined have spent 100 billion dollars on pro-green propaganda, and anouther 1 trillion on pro-green subsidies.
FrankHerbert
1.5 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2011
I would estimate conservative groups have spent 100,000 bajillion dollars on mass evil. Prove me wrong.
NotParker
3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2011
One country, one type of green subsidy:

"Britain's energy policy faces new controversy as it can be revealed that electricity customers are paying more than £1 billion a year to subsidise windfarms and other forms of renewable energy."

http://www.telegr...ear.html
NotParker
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2011
Italy, 60 billion in solar subsidies:

"this would result in a US$60 billion incentive burden."

http://www.thegwp...tal.html
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2011
NotParker, how do you feel about subsidies to the oil companies?
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2011
What oil subsidies?

"Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPAs Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.

Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion.

Read more: http://www.foxnew...KZ4h6DFH
"
Shell paid the US govt $2.2 billion. Some subsidy.
Arkaleus
1.1 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2011
Ideologically retarded zealots represent a portion of humanity that has broken itself intellectually and sits cutting itself amidst the ruins of the western world.

Every time one of these information-zombies howls against their own kind and screams for their enslavement and "control" it kills a bit more of our specie's soul.

I weep uselessly for the destruction these insidious deceptions have done to the minds of our civilization. The legacy of our failure will be to expose our children to the ravages of limitless power, lawless tyranny, and they will suffer every bit of the damnation we ignited from our madness and nihilism.

Sadly, they are so delusional and mad that they willingly hand over the liberties of their children and themselves to the most evil sorts of men whose true cause is nothing but wealth and luxury for themselves and cages for the rest of us.

We are the earth, we are made from it and our life is its life. Quit trying to kill man.
Arkaleus
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2011
To increase the power of the earth's wealthy interests, we must be made to believe there is a crisis.

Not only must the crisis be grand and terrifying, it must be solved by the confiscation or control of the industry, wealth and material of whoever the concern should like to govern.

Their root is nonsensical: "The climate is under the control of our will." - The thought does not come from what is presented to a mind's reasoned senses!

The changing weather has not ever been cause for any civil commotion requiring the surrender of money, tangible goods or legal rights to the wealthy ruling factions of the world.

Reject the notion that we must pay any group or government for any idea proceeding from an assumption that the weather is under any jurisdiction, or that a vanity of paper law is somehow incumbent upon the almighty forces of nature's god.

We are babes in this cosmos. Don't harm our beginnings with your greed and ill tempers.
NotParker
3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2011
NotParker, how do you feel about subsidies to the oil companies?


Unfortunately, the term fossil fuel subsidies is implied to mean subsidies to oil companies.

The IEA notes over 300 billion in CONSUMPTION subsidies.

And the top countries are Iran, Saudia Arabia, Russia, India, China, Egypt etc. Bo first world countries off any major CONSUMPTION subsidies.

CONSUMPTION subsidies actually keep the price of fossil fuels low for CONSUMERS. They don't pay world market prices.

http://www.worlde...nov9.pdf

In first world countries, electricity and gasoline are priced way higher than market prices because of feed in tariffs for wind and solar and because of taxes on gasoline.

In the US people pay on average 48cents a gallon in taxes on gas at the pump.
FrankHerbert
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2011
No offense, but I don't want my tax dollars used to socialize gasoline prices. Gas costs what it costs, let's stop fooling ourselves.
NotParker
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2011
No offense, but I don't want my tax dollars used to socialize gasoline prices. Gas costs what it costs, let's stop fooling ourselves.


You tell Iran to raise gas prices.

I'd perfer my government to quite subsidising crap technologies like Wind "Bird Murdering" Turbines built in China using filthy rare earth elements.

And I want my government to take fuel taxes off gasoline.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.2 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2011
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPAs Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits.
And how would the clean air regulation affect drilling into the ground?
What oil subsidies?
Laughably ignorant as usual Mr. Swenson.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2011
And how would the clean air regulation affect drilling into the ground?

Ask your Regulatory State. They are making the rules. They are trying to destroy the US economy.

"During a recent interview of an EPA bureaucrat by Representative Cory Gardner of Colorado, it became apparent that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has no apparent goals to preserve jobs. Jobs lost by EPA intervention apparently mean nothing to the EPA administrators."
http://lubbockonl...out-jobs

"President Obamas EPA is headed at a breakneck speed to impose regulations certain to cost Americans their money by the billions and their jobs by the millions,"
http://energycomm...mp;IID=8
lairdwilcox
4 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2011
This is a fascinating article in that it documents the incredible funding available to causes and crusades that dramatically expand government power. Intuitively, one would think that the business community would be able to out-spend the environmental movement several times over, but that is not the case. This gives weight to the conspiracy theory that statist objectives are often promoted by business elites in support of a "new world order" objective.

The article also supports the view that resistance to these objectives cannot easily be overwhelmed by superior spending and news media support. Finally, it demonstrates the role of skilled media and propaganda professionals have in promoting ideological objectives.
omatumr
1.8 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2011
This is a fascinating article in that it DOCUMENTS the incredible funding available to causes and crusades that dramatically expand government power.


Yes, indeed! That is the problem that former President Eisenhower called 'control of public policy by a "scientific-technological elite" ' in his farewell address on 17 Jan 1961:

http://www.youtub...ld5PR4ts

That is why NASA and DOE have promoted misinformation about the Earth's heat source (the Sun) since the 1969 Apollo Mission to the Moon.

1. The Sun's Origin:

http://www.youtub...e_Qk-q7M

2. The Sun's composition:

http://www.youtub...QSSHIe6k

3. The Sun's source of energy:

http://www.youtub...yLYSiPO0

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2011
Ask your Regulatory State. They are making the rules. They are trying to destroy the US economy.
You made the assertion, back it up or put the chain mail you copied it off of back into the recycle bin.
omatumr
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2011
Ask your Regulatory State. They are making the rules. They are trying to destroy the US economy.
You made the assertion, back it up or put the chain mail you copied it off of back into the recycle bin.


Does anyone believe that the US economy is in great shape?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2011
Ask your Regulatory State. They are making the rules. They are trying to destroy the US economy.
You made the assertion, back it up or put the chain mail you copied it off of back into the recycle bin.
Does anyone believe that the US economy is in great shape?
Wasn't the question.

I asked your cohort: How does the clean air act directly halt drilling with a permit? His answer was: I don't know but it's your fault. Do you agree with his answer?
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2011
Do you believe CO2-induced global warming is a greater danger than the threat of a tyrannical government that uses our tax funds to support causes and crusades that will dramatically expand government power?

Please read at least this synopsis of George Orwell's book, "1984"

http://www.online...ll/1984/
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2011
"The EPAs appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.'

"The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. Members are appointed by the EPA administrator."

Read more: http://www.foxnew...KeHfEhjY
Silver_the_Fox
2 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2011
Soory ryg, omatuar, but Skeptic is right as usual, all ryg said, was, and I quote

Ask your Regulatory State. They are making the rules. They are trying to destroy the US economy.


This is a honost to God diversion of the question and as such is regarded as an Idiot's answer. Sorry to be so immature sounding on this, but really, come on now.

If we look at how a lie is told for a moment (now play with me here) it is either told with a half-truth, a diversion of topic, or with a fabricated story. Differant markers are used to identify each of these lie "genres". half truths are typically marked with accusations and attempts to give oneself a role in the discovery of the truth. Diversions are often marked with fear, anger, or seeming lack of knowledge.
(cont.)
Silver_the_Fox
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2011
While full on lies are often marked with hesitancy, anger, and fear. Additional markers of fabricated stories, is when a "New" version a story is contradictory with the original story.

A fourth and final addition to the list is a repeated mantra or phrase that the person in question uses as a shield. I personally believe that Ryg is both numbers 1 and 4.

Any questions?
Silver out.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2011
The EPAs appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling
That isn't the Clean Air act, now is it Mr. Swenson? That would be the industrial accounting clause of the minerals management regulatory permit guidelines.

As I said in another thread to you, if you failed to tell the bank that you had a mortgage what would happen to your car loan when they found out?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2011
That isn't the Clean Air act, now is it Mr. Swenson?

Never claimed it was. You did.
But it is still the EPA.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2011
That isn't the Clean Air act, now is it Mr. Swenson?

Never claimed it was. You did.
But it is still the EPA.

No, your source, that you probably didn't read, did by saying it was an 'air permit'. Those are issued under the clean air act compliance guidelines.

You seem to get these things confused a lot. This tells me that you aren't quite that familair with the various governing bodies and regulations. If you're not familiar with them, how can you make any statements about them?

You argue from ignorance an awful lot.
Silver_the_Fox
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2011
Well, some one from my own kind, too bad SH makes sense ryg, or I'd be on your side.
emsquared
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2011
How does the clean air act directly halt drilling with a permit?

From someone who works in the industrial emissions monitoring industry (me): To operate the drill rigs, you will need several quite large, diesel-fired generators, this is not to mention any off-gas flares, or processing equipment that would be built after a well is established like heaters, catalytic crackers, amine units etc. To operate these facilities, the operator must first file for a federal, Titlve V(5) permit, which includes among it's provisions, CAA emissions inventories that must be quantified by the operator. If the operators Title V permit application is found to be unrepresentative of future operations/emissions or to be too egrigious of a polluter, the EPA can deny them that permit and thereby the ability to build those facilities. They could make amendments and re-file it would seem, but the EPA could probably set the bar so high that practical operation is not possible under the constraints?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2011
"During the public comment period on the proposed permit, which ended on March 22,
2010, EPA received numerous written and oral comments regarding the project. EPA has
carefully reviewed each of the comments submitted and, after consideration of the
expressed view of all interested persons, the pertinent federal statues and regulations, and
additional material relevant to the application and contained in the administrative record,
EPA has made a decision in accordance with 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR Part 55 to issue
a final OCS/PSD permit to Shell."
http://yosemite.e...9-10.pdf
And some wonder why business and industry are fleeing the USA. The govt can't be trusted. The same thing happened to a coal mining company in WV.
After spending billions, the govt changes its mind for political reasons.
This is not rule of law.
Silver_the_Fox
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2011
And everything you suggest is? EXCUSE ME Mr. Arrogance, but you need to learn how to speak publically. Another trick, people hate being asked questions, hate being commaneded, and HATE arrogance. I'm speaking for a majority of mankind, not all of it, BTW.

One last thing, PLEASE make sure everything you post as "Proof" is not part of a larger text or report that can be used against you. THAT is how SH has been hammering you on virtually EVERY topic you visit. Class Dismissed.

Any Questions?
Silver out.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2011
SH claims to support the rule of law in his Regulatory State.
The EPA is now operating on the arbitrary rule of kings as are all US govt agencies under this regime.
When the rules change at the whim of the dictator, it is difficult to know when and how to invest.
Then, when the regime wonders why the economy is contracting, no one is hiring and investing, they want to apply more coercion.
It's like trying to hold sand in your hands. The more the govt squeezes the more sand is lost.
I have never understood the idea that it is better to rule in hell than server in heaven. That is what the current 'progressive' regime seems to prefer. Maybe that's why the 'progressives' keep kissing Lil Kim's butt in DPRK. They envy his power over his little part of hell.
Silver_the_Fox
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2011
Sigh, you're doing it again. Come up with new rhetoric, do something here that you've never done before, you aren't going to convinve anyone of anything unless you come up with something new. see the following URL to see your mirror image, and his downfall, he goes by the name of, TheGhostofOtto1923. Cheers.

Silver out.

P.S. Kim Jong Il is not so powerful, he has nukes, and he has total power, but you just hung yourself by saying that the US envies that. Obama is a progressive, ergo you say Obama wants to be a dictator, so why hasn't he done it yet? I mean, he could've if the US was the way you describe it as. And then we all said AMEN!

Any Questions?
Silver REALLY out.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2011
I said 'progressives' must envy his power. Tom Friedman and Obama have both commented how they envy the power the Chinese govt has to control everything. China controls DPRK. DPRK could not exist without Chinese support.

"the cream of Americas intellectuals were obsessed with emulating the top-down socialism of Bismarcks Prussia. Later, the New Deal was understood as part of the Europeanization of America, "
"Tom Friedman, the prettiest flower out there right now is China. For others, its France or Canada. For the truly demented, its Cuba."
"Tom Friedman has gone so far as to wish America could be China for a day and to suggest that its enlightened regime is preferable to our own. "
"What unites all of these people is a form of power worship. These foreign governments and their experts have control over citizens and economies sometimes through democratic consent, sometimes not that the state doesnt have in America."
http://www.nation...3/better
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2011
"Francis Fukuyama and Steven Pearlstein are awestruck by the authoritarian decisiveness of China. Pearlstein claims that with "its state-controlled economy, China can force its companies to act collaboratively to achieve the country's strategic economic objectives." He wants America to adopt exactly the protectionist and statist policies of the Communists."
http://www.theatl.../177010/

"I do know that China's economic growth has occured thanks to its willingness to learn lessons from the success of western economies. And I think that the only way western economies can really lose from China's rise is by forgetting those very same lessons. Which some Americans, at least, seem all too eager to do."
http://www.econom...growth_0
Not everyone drinks the kool-aid.
FrankHerbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2011
Some drink tea ;)
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011
Laughable how you've posted so little but used so many words (from other people).

You should have fact checked your sources.
www.youtube.com/w...VdShO_9s
http://www.freere...14/posts
Silver_the_Fox
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2011
I forgot to post the URL I pomised, sorry to disappoint you ryg! Here you go:

http://www.physor...rth.html

Enjoy! ;-)
Silver out.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.