Profits Over Our Planet: When and why the climate change redirect shifted in U.S. politics.
- Erin Healy
- Aug 26, 2020
- 9 min read
Most Americans seem to have an idea of what key factors separate Democrat and Republican Party values. Democrats are the party of social equality; valuing voting rights, environmental protections, reproductive rights, and multiculturalism. While Republicans are the party of economic conservatism; valuing free market capitalism, deregulation of corporations, and are often known to favor traditional social norms. There are many differences between the two parties. However, one issue used to be a shared concern by both. Climate change used to be a bipartisan issue. Today, Republicans tend to deny climate change and the impact that humans have on the environment. When did this change? At what point in our country’s history did we become so polarized on this issue? In this paper I will be examining the timeline of the attitudes towards climate change.
Humans have long suspected that our activity had an impact on the climate. For example, 19th century Americans and Ancient Greeks debated that cutting down forests would change rainfall in that region. The discovery of the ice ages proved that our climate could radically change overtime. In the 1930s, scientists had began to notice that the United States and North Atlantic regions had warmed significantly (Weart, 2012). Scientists speculated this was merely a phase of some mild cycle. Although one scientist by the name of G.S. Callendar insisted the warming was due to the “greenhouse effect.” The greenhouse effect is an idea from a Swedish scientist in the late 1800s, Svante Arrhenius (Weart, 2012). Arrhenius hypothesized that as humans burned fossil fuels, like coal, we were adding carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere. He argued that this would raise the planet’s temperature due to our atmosphere trapping the gases. It was not until the 1950s that scientists pondered Callendar’s claims. Measurements made by the renowned climate scientist C.D. Kneeling in the 60s showed that the amount of gas in the atmosphere was rising year by year.
As temperatures rose so did environmental activism. The 1970s were ripe with protests calling for social change and environmental protections. Scientists studying the issue conducted study panels that concluded the warming of our climate could pose a severe threat. President Nixon signed the Clean Air Act on December 31, 1970. Nixon, a Republican, also appointed environmentalists to high positions within the White House. He proposed the Environmental Policy Act (EPA) which was ratified that same year. Fast forward to 1984, the year the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic was discovered. In 1988, Republican presidential nominee George H. W. Bush addressed the issue of global warming saying “some say these problems are too big. That it is impossible for a nation as great as ours to solve the problem of global warming.” Bush continued, “my answer is simple, it can be done and we must do it.” Six months into his term President Bush worked on policies to improve air quality in cities and reduce our country’s emissions. He declared in November of 1990 that “every city in America should have clean air.”
The early 90s saw growing concerns among large groups of people about the issue of climate change. Under H.W. Bush, environmental policies passed such as the Energy Policy Act and the Global Change Research Act go to show that climate change was an issue that was mainly bipartisan. Furthermore, in 2008 a global warming-awareness campaign, “We Can Solve It,” ran an ad that featured Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The two sat side by side, declaring that climate change is a priority our lawmakers need to address despite being from opposing political parties.
“We do agree, our country must take action to address climate change,… If enough of us demand action from our leaders we can spark the innovation we need” said Newt Gingrich.
However, in an WGIR radio interview in 2011 the former House Speaker backtracked saying the commercial was “misconstrued” and regrets taking part in the campaign. The Hill reported that same year that Gingrich went on to say that he “meant exactly what [he] said in the commercial,” but defended himself by saying he never endorsed a policy solution for climate change. In the 2011 WGIR interview, Newt stated he “was trying to make a point that we shouldn’t be afraid to debate the left, even on the environment. … Obviously it was misconstrued, and it’s probably one of those things I wouldn’t do again.” That same year Gingrich appeared on Fox News for an interview with Sean Hannity. Hannity mockingly asked him why he would do a commercial with Nancy Pelosi. To which Gingrich answered “because I was really stupid.”
In 2009, the American Clean Energy and Security Act was introduced by the House of Representatives, also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill. Representatives Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Henry A. Waxman of California were the authors of the bill. Both Democrats, Waxman was the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee at the time. While Markey was the chairman of that committee’s Energy and Power Subcommittee. The bill proposed a cap and trade system for greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. Meaning the government would set a limit for the total amount of greenhouse gases that could be emitted nationally. Setting a cap on total emissions from 2012-2050, and would require regulated entities to hold rights to emit greenhouse gases (Walsh, 2010). Those companies would then be free to buy or sell trade permits to emit these gases to other entities. The bill required electric facilities to meet 20 percent of their electricity demand by using renewable energy sources by 2020. It aimed for a 17 percent emissions reduction from carbon levels of 2005 by 2020. A number Obama’s administration had committed to reaching, as well reducing levels 26-28 percent below 2005’s levels. The ultimate goal of the bill was to reduce our country’s carbon emissions overtime. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007, our current emissions rate could increase the global temperature by 2 degrees Celsius. Over 2,500 scientific experts contributed to the Fourth Assessment Report and warned that if we exceed that number it could have dangerous and irreversible effects.
The data showed the Waxman-Markey Bill was very necessary based on the findings of numerous climate scientists. The New York Times noted that the bill was supported by numerous environmental organizations and influential companies like Ford and Dow Chemical. It even gained support from a conservative group Republicans for Environmental Protection, now known as ConservAmerica. The bill passed in the House on June 26, 2009 but was never even brought to the Senate floor for a vote.
There are many reasons why the bill died. The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the natural gas and petroleum industry was a strong opposer of the bill. API said the bill would place a burden on consumers, causing gas prices to exceed, by today’s standards, gas would cost $4.00 per gallon by the year 2035. While the API arguing against the climate bill seemed like a given; polls conducted by Republican Frank Lutz showed that the majority of Americans believed in climate change. However, the polls concluded some Americans were not comfortable supporting legislation based on the scientific data alone. (Walsh, 2010). One conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation released a report called “The Economic Impacts of the Waxma-Markey” which criticized the plan’s costs and benefits. “Though the proposed legislation would have little impact on world temperatures, it is a massive energy tax in disguise that promises job loses, income cuts, and a sharp left turn towards big government.” (Kreutzer, Lieberman, Beach. 2009). The report claimed that the impact on global temperature by the end of the 21st century would only amount to a reduction of no more than 0.2 degrees Celsius. The Heritage Foundation had a leading role in the conservative movement during the Reagan years. The foundation continues to have significant influence in U.S. policy-making today. However, the main culprit for supplying doubt among conservatives were the Koch brothers. David and Charles Koch are billionaire oilman who own Koch Industries. While David Koch died in 2019, the echos of his climate change denial are still very much alive.
Other oil giants are responsible for fueling redirect and funding climate change denial for corporate interests however, the Koch brothers blow them all out of the water. An article published by Greenpeace defined climate change denial as “anyone who is obstructing, delaying or trying to derail policy steps that are in line with the scientific consensus that says we need to take rapid steps to decarbonize the economy.” Before the 90s most lobbyists had not been outright denying the irrefutable science of climate change. They mainly denied the need for viable solutions, like carbon regulations, as their main interests were the costs these solutions would have on their corporations (Greenpeace, 2010). In theory, legislators and corporate leaders could have worked closer together to revise climate bills overtime if our bipartisan attitude on the issue was not being whittled away by the Koch’s. Director of the Climate Investigation Center and infamous environmentalist Kert Davies said in a 2019 interview that if it were not for the Koch’s actions “you’d have a carbon tax, or something better, today, if not for the Kochs. They stopped anything from happening back when there was still time.” The Koch brother’s industry being rooted in fossil fuel operations rapidly started funding climate change doubt, promoting the idea that the science was mere theory and that Americans could hold an alternative view on climate change.
In the early 90s, as the scientific consensus emerged around climate change. Koch Industries sprang into action over fears of profit loses. A 44-page report by Greenpeace titled “Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine” was released in 2010 exposing Koch Industries detrimental actions. A large part of Koch’s influence in the denial comes from three main foundations. One of the largest being Americans for Prosperity (AFP) which was founded in 2004 with a $850,000 seed grant from David Koch. AFP claims that climate action is not necessary and says any action to address it based off “global warming alarmists” (Greenpeace, 2010). The Koch’s had been building a machine of climate denial by giving enormous grants to front groups, conservative think tanks, and numerous foundations creating the echo chamber that is climate denial.
The Koch’s poured more than $5 million into AFP’s 2008 “Hot Air Tour”, a campaign that spread misinformation about climate change. (Greenpeace, 2010). Additionally, they granted over $1 million to The Heritage Foundation, $800,000 to the Manhattan Institute, and over $1 million to the Cato Institute which was founded by Charles Koch in the 70s. Among countless others all in effort to spread the misinformation and alternative "facts" about climate change. However, their influence does not stop there; Koch has enormous political influence. In 2010 Greenpeace reported that Koch executives and family members actively federally lobby and contribute to campaigns. Greenpeace reported that $37.9 million was spent from 2006 to 2009 for direct lobbying on oil and energy issues, $5.74 million in PAC (political action committee) money was spent for candidates, committees, and campaign expenditures since the 2006 election cycle, and had contributed $270,800 to federal political party committees since the 2006 election cycle. Furthermore, $365,000 was spent for advocates of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment who argue that global warming is “inevitable” and too costly. $360,000 to Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP) for a rebuttal documentary for Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” They also gave $325,000 to the Tax Foundation, which issued a misleading study on the costs of the proposed climate bill.
In 2007, a paper appeared in the journal Ecological Complexity that claimed scientists found polar bears were not affected by melting ice caps. The author of the paper admitted that he had received funding from ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute and the Charles G. Koch foundation. The paper was published under “viewpoint” rather than “scientific research” and was not peer-reviewed. The article also received criticism from Arctic ice scientists for containing no new research and drawing unsupported conclusions. (Greenpeace, 2010). However, that did not stop multiple Koch-funded groups to redistribute the article and its claims that polar bears were not endangered by climate change. Moreover, those same groups, one being PRIPP, went on to threaten to sue the federal government for listing polar bears as an endangered species.
The foundation-funded front-groups, massive lobbying budgets, PAC donations, and direct campaign contributions come together to create the Koch’s climate denial machine. Making them the greatest obstacle keeping America from advancing to clean energy and climate legislation. Ultimately, changing the way we once thought about climate change which was as a scientifically-backed, bipartisan issue that we could have advanced on overtime. Koch Industries and David and Charles Koch personally used their money, power and influence to derail the conversation surrounding climate change, polarize Americans on the issue, and disregard the crucial work of numerous climate scientists. They were two of the earliest figures to have the longest lasting and most detrimental effects to the issue.
The year of the earliest known organized climate change deniers conference was 1991 and was sponsored by the Cato Institute. According to Christopher Leonard, author of “Kochland” which examined the Koch’s role in climate change denial, the conference of 1991 was called “Global Environmental Crisis: Science or Politics?” After President George H.W. Bush announced his support for a carbon limitation treaty, oilman like the Koch’s sprang into action. This can be seen as the turning point in our history that transformed our attitudes on climate change.
In conclusion, the scientific consensus on climate change was leading our lawmakers on how to address it. All that changed due to Koch brothers who derailed our country’s conversation surrounding climate change and led us on a path that ultimately favors profits over the well-being of our planet and its people.
Work Cited
Weart, Spencer. The Discovery of Global Warming [Excerpt]. Scientific American, Scientific American, 17 Aug. 2012, www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-global-warming/.
IPCC AR4 Report, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.
Kreutzer, David. The Economic Impact of Waxman-Markey.â€Â The Heritage Foundation, 2009, www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/the-economic-impact-waxman-markey.
Greenpeace. Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP). Greenpeace USA, 2010, www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/front-groups/americans-for-prosperity-foundation-afp/.
Walsh, Bryan. Why the Climate Bill Died. Time, Time, 26 July 2010, science.time.com/2010/07/26/why-the-climate-bill-died/.
Comentários