Conservative Philanthropy Roundtable attacks _Our Stolen Future_

[ttweed@wildrockies.org (Tony Tweedale)]

*3.  Conservative Philanthropy Roundtable goes after environmental funding,
charitable foundations.

The cover story in the July/August issue of _Philanthropy_, the magazine of
the conservative Philanthropy Roundtable, asks, "Are you Funding
Environmental Fearmongering?" and devotes several articles to the subject.
Charles Rubin's "How diehard activists manipulate public opinion on the
environment" offers up the theory of the "populizer" as environmentalist,
who tends to lead the unknowing public closer to totalitarianism.  This
article is meant as a reflective background piece for two more pointed
attacks on environmental grantmakers, which will be discussed at greater
length.

Ron Bailey and Daniel McKivergan, in their respective contributions on the
subject, are unable to provide a clear picture of environmental giving or
any illumination into the motivations or patterns behind the giving.  The
main target of Bailey's article, "Leading the Charge," is the W. Alton
Jones Foundation for its support of "Our Stolen Future."  The book on
endocrine disrupters has already garnered plenty of backlash attention and
Bailey adds nothing new.  "Our Stolen Future" was a collaborative effort by
Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and J. "Pete" Myers, Executive Director of
the W. Alton Jones Foundation.  The Pew Charitable Trusts and other
foundations are criticized in the article by McKivergan, "The Global
Warming Debate Heats Up," for funding projects designed to decrease US
greenhouse gas production and to support the Kyoto Protocol.

The articles take a cooler academic tone than most backlash polemics, but
the criticisms are the same.  The articles claim, essentially, that
environmentalists are alarmists, do not practice sound science, have
totalitarian tendencies toward global governance, and perpetuate "myths"
such as global warming.  Because the authors don't resort to the name
calling or lapse into paranoid delusions about an environmentalist/UN plot
to take over the US, there is no compelling motive assigned to the
environmentally supportive foundations.  Another favorite argument, that
environmental organizations are in it for the money, cannot be used against
the environmental grantmakers simply because they are giving the money
away.

Without a motive for Pew and the others, McKivergan's article fails to find
any reason why the foundations would be interested in global warming other
than a desire to be "alarmist" for no apparent gain.  The motivation on
McKivergan's side of the fence however is clear.  McKivergan trots out the
usual stable of global warming skeptics: Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen,
and Frederick Seitz in an attempt to show how the grants are misguided at
best. The scientists he quotes the most, Patrick Michaels, is an industry
funded scientist whose backers have a clear financial interest in
perpetuating the status quo.

In fact, is the very non-profit policy organizations funded by the
foundations which make up the Philanthropy Roundtable that have put forth
the greatest effort to convince the American public that global warming is
a myth.  Along with industry front groups run out of public relations
firms, non-profit policy organizations such as the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy and the National Center for Public
Policy Research have spent many millions on the same issue.

In addition, Competive Enterprise Institute gets money not only from
foundations, but from the American Petroleum Institute, General Motors and
Texaco.  Citizens for a Sound Economy has been funded by American Petroleum
Insitute, General Motors and Mobil, while National Center for Public Policy
Research has recieved money from Chrysler, Exxon, General Motors and Mobil.
These particular corporate grants were pulled out of a sea of others
because every one of these corporations is member of the Global Climate
Coalition, a corporate front group, which spent an estimated $13 million in
a campaign to defeat the Kyoto Protocol.  For a full list of known funders,
see CLEAR's home page at http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/clear/clear.html

The main argument leveled at W. Alton Jones, in Bailey's piece, other than
their support of Colborn et al's work, is that W.A. Jones doesn't fund
scientific research.  Since when is funding policy organizations a new or
sinister thing?  It's like someone who lives in a giant glass palace
throwing stones.  According to a July 1997 report by the National Committee
for Responsive Philanthropy, the top 10 conservative national think tanks
and advocacy groups received $41,336,301 between 1992 and 1994 in
foundation grants alone.  Almost all of these groups allocate a portion of
their funding to environmental backlash projects and policy development, as
mentioned above in the case of global warming.  The same study found that
twelve major foundations gave over $200 million dollars in the same period.
Much of the money was given by the John M. Olin Foundation, the Lynde and
Harry Bradley Foundation and the various Scaife foundations, all of whom
are represented on the board of directors of the Philanthropy Roundtable.
There is no comparable study for progressive or centrist groups.

Bailey's primary criticism, that "Our Stolen Future" puts forth an
unsubstantiated fantasy about endocrine disruptors, is also misleading.  In
reality, endocrine disrupters are being taken seriously by the mainstream
scientific community.  The National Academy of Sciences commissioned a
special committee to study the problem, a report from which is forthcoming
this year.  And a new EPA chemical screening program is underway in
response to two congressional mandates in 1996.  The New York Times
reported on August 31, "Even though the scientific knowledge is still
evolving, the [EPA] advisory committee  found there is 'appropriate
widespread agreement' that a screening and testing program [for endocrine
disrupters] is needed."  If there is no credible science behind "Our Stolen
Future," the world will know it soon enough.  But Bailey and his ilk wish
to stop the debate before widespread testing can be done, because it is
easier to deny a problem that doesn't yet have a large body of scientific
evidence behind it.
...

===============
TO SUBSCRIBE:
To subscribe to A CLEAR View send an e-mail with "subscribe" in the subject
line to clear-view@ewg3.ewg.org.  To unsubscribe, do the same thing but
write "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
===============
ABOUT CLEAR
CLEAR provides grassroots and national environmental advocates and
organizations with information about the vital importance of fair and
effective environmental policies in protecting human health, natural
resources, communities and private property.  Through publications,
research, and facts, CLEAR helps concerned citizens understand and counter
misinformation about environmental policy and science and the impacts of
environmental law on the economy and private property. CLEAR is a project
of the Environmental Working Group.