How much $ to manufacture controversy per year? Up to 1 Billion

Desperate, they are.

Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Environment |

Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change, according to the first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort.

The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change. Such financial support has hardened conservative opposition to climate policy, ultimately dooming any chances of action from Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet, the study found.

“I call it the climate-change counter movement,” said the author of the study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle. “It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort.”

Brulle’s study, published on Friday in the journal Climatic Change, offers the most definitive exposure to date of the political and financial forces blocking American action on climate change.

They pay scientists to do just the right research and publish in just the right ways. They create doubt where there is none. They don’t tell the whole truth, they lie. And many people buy it. The good thing is, reality does win out in the end but it may be too late.

I almost wish there was a way to prosecute people like this for crimes against humanity.

Here are some of the culprits listed in the Guardian piece:

Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution.

Tip: Jamie A.

  4 comments for “How much $ to manufacture controversy per year? Up to 1 Billion

  1. December 23, 2013 at 7:11 PM

    I believe they have changed the headling to “may spend”. There is a problem with study, in that that it can’t separate out how each organization allocates money towards climate change denial. The 1Billion (well really 900M) is the sum total of all the spending by the designated organizations.

  2. Chris Howard
    December 23, 2013 at 9:43 PM

    There are already people talking about prosecuting those who knowingly lie about climate change, and contribute to global warming.

    A professor in Australia (I think?) has suggested that those responsible be brought up on manslaughter, as well as in some cases, murder charges; in addition to any property damages settlements.

    If it can be done to Big Tobbacco I suppose that those responsible for global warming could be held liable for their actions, as well?

  3. Barn
    December 24, 2013 at 9:26 AM

    Manslaughter? Really? Who is NOT responsible for global warming? Guess we should all pay up (or get locked up). But first we should go after those countries whose citizens have the gall to think they have the right to join the middle class. How dare they! Back to the stone ages for all of us!

  4. Chris Howard
    December 24, 2013 at 2:19 PM

    My guess would be that power (electrical generation) and industries that contribute the lions share of pollution, known to cause global climate change, would be held responsible?

    Internal combustion engines, being the second biggest source, could also, possibly, be held responsible for their part.

    Of course trying to prove that those who made the decisions to ignore facts, hard evidence, and the like regarding global climate change in a court of law would be difficult. (Although there seems to be plenty of evidence, as noted above, to suggest that this is the case)

    I think the professors point was that if global climate change occurs beyond a certain point that it can increase the spread of tropical diseases further north, which could cause more death.

    Of course that doesn’t have to happen. Respiratory illnesses have increased due in large part to more pollution over the decades, which have resulted in related fatalities. Particularly in small children, and the elderly.

    So if a company(s) knowingly causes harm, and attempts to hide, or distort the truth of its destructive practices, in order to mislead the public, and those actions cause destruction of another’s property, or health, then it seems to me that people could have a legal case.

    Not sure about the whole “middle-class/Stone Age” thing?

Comments are closed.