The Denial of Global Warming, Part 4 - The Most Powerful Promoter of Denialism: ALEC

The Center for Media and Democracy describes the American Legislative Exchange Council ( ALEC):

“ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through the secretive meetings of the American Legislative Exchange Council, corporate lobbyists and state legislators vote as equals on ‘model bills’ to change our rights that often benefit the corporations’ bottom line at public expense. ALEC is a pay-to-play operation where corporations buy a seat and a vote on ‘task forces’ to advance their legislative wish lists and can get a tax break for donations, effectively passing these lobbying costs on to taxpayers.

“Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations.

“Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills.

“ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law.”

Tom Hamburger, writing in the Washington Post in December 2014:

“Oil, gas and coal interests that spent millions to help elect Republicans this year are moving to take advantage of expanded GOP power in Washington and state capitals to thwart Obama administration environmental rules.

“Industry lobbyists made their pitch in private meetings last week with dozens of state legislators at a summit of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an industry-financed conservative state policy group.

“The lobbyists and legislators considered several model bills to be introduced across the country next year, designed to give states more power to block or delay new Obama administration environmental standards, including new limits on power-plant emissions.

“Meanwhile, underscoring the extent to which fossil-fuel industry allies will pressure Republicans seen as squishy on key issues, the group Americans for Prosperity began an advertising campaign in two dozen House districts after the November elections, pressing GOP lawmakers to oppose tax breaks for wind-energy firms. The organization was founded and funded in part by billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch.

“Two dozen chief executives of national environmental groups met last week in the Washington offices of Friends of the Earth to talk about how to respond to what participants called “the assault” by fossil-fuel industry allies. The groups plan to solicit contributions from major liberal donors to support a new organization to counter the industry’s growing effectiveness on the state level.

“The advocacy groups worry about the role played by ALEC, which has a successful track record of designing conservative legislation on issues such as guns, criminal justice and voting that has won widespread passage in state capitals.

“If enacted by states, ALEC’s measures targeting the EPA could be used to delay the federal rule-making process, fuel lawsuits and build public opposition to an environmental movement that once had bipartisan support, environmental advocates say. If the industry could delay implementation of the carbon regulations until after Obama leaves office, a Republican president could reverse the limits.

“Aliya Haq, a climate change specialist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the ALEC proposals would “handcuff” states just as they would be required to comply with new federal standards. She said that “ALEC and their cronies would love to see as much delay as possible.

“The industry’s approach was evident at last week’s ALEC meeting, where officials of fossil-fuel firms such as Koch Industries and Peabody Energy mixed with lawmakers and ALEC organizers to discuss and sometimes edit proposed model bills.

“The Post was granted rare access to some parts of the meeting, which was attended by more than 400 people, including industry representatives and state officials from across the country. Multiple participants in the private sessions that focused on environmental and energy policy provided accounts of what happened. In one closed-door meeting, for instance, Sarah Magruder Lyle, a former Energy Department official who is now a vice president at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers association, made the case for a proposal that would scale back Obama administration rules on ozone. Her argument, a spokesman for her trade group said, was that the ozone rule was “threatening states’ economies while providing little benefit to the environment or to consumers.”

“A separate proposal debated by ALEC participants would give legislatures a role in setting state limits for carbon emissions, including the requirement of a ­cost-benefit analysis.

“Another proposed resolution would call for abolishing the EPA and replacing it with a committee of state officials. The idea was put aside after some corporate lobbyists cautioned that it could hurt ALEC’s credibility.

“Nevertheless, participants said, the anti-EPA feelings ran so deep at the meeting that an ALEC task force weighing the various proposals agreed to create a “working group” to further consider ways state legislatures could support replacing the federal agency.”

The topic of global warming and climate change is one of immense complexity, and is a source of intense emotional feelings. In attempting to better educate myself about the issues involved, I came to these conclusions:

• there is a nearly unanimous consensus among climate scientists that man-made global warming is real;

• the financial consequences of global warming are dire. The number of $1 billion dollar disastrous weather events is rising rapidly;

• climate scientists are uniquely qualified to generate, interpret, and present data concerning climate change and global warming;

• people with solid general scientific literacy, such as engineers, geologists, and physicists, may have an inflated perception of their understanding of climate science, and thus draw incorrect conclusions that conform to their ideological biases;

• information that increases understanding about the climate can also increase public acceptance of global warming, especially among conservatives;

• the climate change countermovement is vast, comprised of at least 91 important climate denial organizations in the U.S.  Funding, much in the form of “dark money” from conservatives, came from at least 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010;

• global warming denial is promoted by well-funded think tanks and organizations such as the State Policy Network, the Heartland Institute, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

It is evident that a well-organized campaign of disinformation has been successful in convincing some that global warming is a hoax. James Powell’s quote bears repeating:

“On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving… on that basis, we are endangering our grandchildren's future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.”

I earlier posed the question: What is the downside for the human race to at least start to do something about climate change? What (or who) could it hurt? I believe that I now have a better idea.

D. Norman