“Denier-gate” scandal uncovers the flaw in pick and mix green strategies

Is everyone on board with your green strategy? The business lesson contained in the Heartland Institute scandal

15 Feb 2012, 13:24

The surprising thing is that people are surprised.

It has long been suspected that organisation's such as the Heartland Institute are funded by vested interests and tasked with promoting climate scepticism through any and all means, fair and foul. And yet the leaked documents that appear to lay bare the inner workings of the self-styled free market think tank retain the capacity to shock.

The Heartland Institute has dodged the opportunity to deny the authenticity of the documents, allowing green campaigners to declare open season on an influential organisation that has long been the mother ship for a lot of climate sceptic thinking around the globe. (Update: The Heartland Institute later issued a statement insisting that one of the documents was a fake and the others may have been tampered with. However, the DeSmog Blog countered that several of the projects mentioned in the contested climate strategy document also appear in the think tank's budget documents.)

You do not need to resort to the favourite climate sceptic trick of quoting people out of context to make these documents look utterly damning. A project to develop an alternative curriculum for school children has the goal of "dissuading teachers from teaching science", funding is set aside for climate sceptic commentators - "at the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found" - the non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change is sponsored to "undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports", and the aim to "keep opposing voices out" of influential media titles is explicitly stated. (Update: Heartland has insisted these quotes from the strategy document have been faked. However, several of those climate bloggers originally handed the documents insist the organisation has provided them with no evidence that they have been faked.)

I'll leave it to environmental commentators to express the appropriate levels of outrage at these nefarious activities and the extent to which they have undermined progressive green policies in the US and overseas (assuming of course that mainstream media outlets have the decency to give this scandal due prominence). What I am interested in is the lessons this shameful episode contains for businesses.

One of the most shocking aspects of the documents is the list of high profile companies that have joined the mysterious "anonymous donor" in providing financial backing to the Heartland Institute.

They include many household names, several of which have either touted their environmental credentials or signed up to green business groups and initiatives. The documents suggest Diageo provided $10,000 in 2010 and is expected to provide $10,000 in 2012, Bayer Corporation was projected to stump up $25,000 in 2012, the General Motors Foundation provided $30,000 over the last two years, GlaxoSmithKline shelled out $30,000 in 2010 and $20,000 last year, Microsoft paid $59,908 in 2011, Pfizer provided $130,000 in 2010, and the US Chamber of Commerce handed over £25,000 in 2010. This is just a sample from an extensive list.

I don't doubt many of these organisations will claim they were funding other aspects of the Heartland Institute's libertarian, free market agenda, and that they remain committed to tackling climate change and reducing their environmental impact (Update: GSK has done pretty much exactly that, issuing the statement: "GSK absolutely does not endorse or support the Heartland Institute's views on the environment and climate change. We have in the past provided a small amount of funding to support the Institute's healthcare newsletter and a meeting". Others have subsequently released similar statements).

But what this scandal reveals is that if you are going to commit to developing greener business models, you cannot pick and mix which parts of your business get involved. Failure to enact genuinely company-wide change programmes means you are always at risk of seeing otherwise admirable green initiatives undermined by less progressive activities elsewhere in the business.

Several high profile US firms, including Apple, Pacific Gas & Electric, Exelon, learnt this lesson in 2009 when they quit the US Chamber of Commerce over its lobbying against climate change legislation. Now it looks like several more firms are about to learn the exact same lesson.

Any business that is publicly committed to a greener future needs to know who it is working with, who it is funding, and how its lobbying activities are managed. Failure to undertake this due diligence and ensure all lobbying activities are in line with the company's wider green commitments leaves an organisation facing the risk that one day a conscientious individual will reveal their support for anti-environmental campaigns. In one swoop, any hopes of establishing a company as a green leader can be lost for a generation. And that is the kind of surprise no green executive wants to face.

Topics:

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Your name
Your email address	We won't publish your address
Your comment title
Your comment:

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions

Submit

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Funding Folly

Odd, isn't it, that the climate "sceptics" (i.e: Flat-Earthers) bang on and on about the amount of funding that goes to scientific institutes and the relative "lack" of funding which goes to those who oppose the work of those organisations. The argument seems to be that, unless both sides of the argument - the scientists and the anti-scientists - receive equal funding, then there is no proper debate. The insanity of that position beggars belief, and surely proves that the climate sceptics are in line with the medieval Church in opposing scientific inquiry and sticking firmly to a position based on guesswork, ideology and blind faith. The morons of the climate-change-denial school claim that there has been no global warming since 1998. That's propaganda, without a shred of scientific evidence to support it. Oh, but of course, if the right-wing fanatics who are spreading such irresponsible claptrap received as much funding as the genuine scientists, then their demented claims might be taken more seriously, I suppose. And, while we're at it, why aren't we funding terrorism to the same extent that we've funded the War On Terror? Why don't we give equal funding to those who absolutely disagree with education as we do to schools? Why aren't we funding ignorance as much as we fund research? Could it be because you would have to be completely mad to argue that those who are fiercely opposed to reality should get as much funding as those who are studying reality and have been sounding grave warnings for forty years?

Posted by: WillH , 19 Feb 2012 | 22:17

Complain about this comment

Retraction or Correction

Seriously? You're sticking with the obviously faked document? Good! This shows the incredible projection alarmists use when calling skeptics "deniers". It also shows their inability to discern fact from fiction. Not only does it expose the gullibility of many alarmists, it also exposes the nature of many others. They fabricate nonsensical arguments and then attack the strawmen they've created. It is a level of dishonesty most skeptics knew existed but now, we've got alarmists displaying this dishonesty for all the world to see. Keep up the good work!!

Posted by: James Sexton , 18 Feb 2012 | 18:59

Complain about this comment

There's gullible written on the ceiling

Come on! Ok, I have a soft spot for environmentalists and none for tobacco lobbyists, but that doesn't mean I think environmentalists should get away with writing complete nonsense ... particularly when it is clearly and obviously based on forged documents.

The real story that comes out with the documents that do seem to be genuine, is that relatively, there is next to no funding for those putting the case for science based clilmate policy (i.e. based on the actual science that says doubling CO2 is likely to lead to 1C warming ... and not the hysterical voodoo "science" of unproven and illogical "positive warmings").

Even one warmist institute like the Climaxic Research centre in East Anglia receive far more money (£14million) compared to the total heartless institute ($5million). In other words all the funding for all the pro-science lobbyists is less than the funding for one alarmist institute. Add the huge budgets of government propaganda, the BBC, WWF, Greenpeace and virtually every academic institute which has seen global warming scare as a nice gravy boat for ridiculous research grants into how warming is going to affect the lesser spotted goat toads of outer mongolia (sorrow ... that would be some nice warm spot close to a big hotel not some god forsaken place).

In other words, it is time environmentalist journalists stopped acting like a goebels propaganda machine for the wind industry and their bird mincers (choppers) and started realising that the environments is best protected by being honest with the public. Honestly integrity and fairness ... but above all scepticism of all those people who seem to see the "saving" the environment as just one huge money making scam.

Posted by: Mike Haseler , 16 Feb 2012 | 10:39

Complain about this comment

Recruitment opportunity?

If I were to publish some angry and insulting comments about the real world online, would I be eligible for a handout from the Heartland Institute as well?

I was particularly impressed by the reasoned and measured response included in the previous post. Is anybody paying you or did you think of all that yourself? Terrifically clever too - I note you can count up to six - were the fingers all on one hand?

Posted by: Pansy , 16 Feb 2012 | 09:45

Complain about this comment

More Crap!!

What about all the crap the global warming and climate change people have tried to push on us. I have not read one report that these people have used for their cause that supports any of their BS!! Isn't it time to stop all this and get down ot work constructiong real soulutins to our problems instead o f all this environ"MENTAL" crap? Just keep in mind the last six letters in environ"MENTAL"! "MENTAL"

Posted by: Irv , 15 Feb 2012 | 22:08