EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Oil Company Donated Millions to Climate Sceptic Groups, Says Greenpeace
Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information'
The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels.
Greenpeace has identified Kansas-based oil firm Koch Industries as a multimillion funder of climate sceptic groups. (Photograph: David McNew/Getty images) Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change, nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels.
In a hard-hitting report, which appears to confirm environmentalists' suspicions that there is a well-funded opposition to the science of climate change, Greenpeace accuses the funded groups of "spreading inaccurate and misleading information" about climate science and clean energy companies.
"The company's network of lobbyists, former executives and organisations has created a forceful stream of misinformation that Koch-funded entities produce and disseminate. The propaganda is then replicated, repackaged and echoed many times throughout the Koch-funded web of political front groups and thinktanks," said Greenpeace.
"Koch industries is playing a quiet but dominant role in the global warming debate. This private, out-of-sight corporation has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. On repeated occasions organisations funded by Koch foundations have led the assault on climate science and scientists, 'green jobs', renewable energy and climate policy progress," it says.
The groups include many of the best-known conservative thinktanks in the US, like Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Foundation for research on economics and the environment. All have been involved in "spinning" the "climategate" story or are at the forefront of the anti-global warming debate, says Greenpeace.
Koch Industries is a $100bn-a-year conglomerate dominated by petroleum and chemical interests, with operations in nearly 60 countries and 70,000 employees. It owns refineries which process more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day in the US, as well as a refinery in Holland. It has held leases on the heavily polluting tar-sand fields of Alberta, Canada and has interests in coal, oil exploration, chemicals, forestry, and pipelines.
The majority of the group's assets are owned and controlled by Charles and David Koch, two of the four sons of the company's founder. They have been identified by Forbes magazine as the joint ninth richest Americans and the 19th richest men in the world, each worth between $14-16bn.
Koch has also contributed money to politicians, the report said, listing 17 Republicans and four Democrats whose campaign funds got more than $10,000from the company.
Greenpeace accuses the Koch companies of having a notorious environmental record. In 2000 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Koch industries $30m for its role in 300 oil spills that resulted in more than 3m gallons of crude oil leaking intro ponds, lakes and coastal waters.
"The combination of foundation-funded front groups, big lobbying budgets, political action campaign donations and direct campaign contributions makes Koch Industries and the Koch brothers among the most formidable obstacles to advancing clean energy and climate policy in the US," Greenpeace said.
A spokeswoman for Koch Industries today defended the group's track record on environmental issues. "Koch companies have consistently found innovative and cost-effective ways to ensure sound environmental stewardship and further reduce waste and emissions of greenhouse gases associated with their operations and products," said a statement sent to AFP by Melissa Cohlmia, director of communication. She added: "Based on this experience, we support open, science-based dialogue about climate change and the likely effects of proposed energy policies on the global economy."
Top 10 Koch beneficiaries 2005-2008
Mercatus center: ($9.2m received from Koch grants 2005-2008) Conservative thinktank at George Mason University. This group suggested in 2001 that global warming would be beneficial in winter and at the poles. In 2009 they recommended that nothing be done to cut emissions.
Americans for prosperity. ($5.17m). Have built opposition to clean energy and climate legislation with events across US.
Institute for humane studies ($1.96m). Several prominent climate sceptics have positions here, including Fred Singer and Robert Bradley.
Heritage foundation ($1.62m). Conservative thinktank leads US opposition to climate change science.
Cato Insitute ($1.02m). Thinktank disputes science behind climate change and questions the rationale for taking action.
Manhattan Institute ($800,000). This institute regularly publishes climate science denials.
Washington legal foundation ($655,000) Published articles on the business threats posed by regulation of climate change.
Federalist society for law ($542,000) advocates inaction on global warming
National center for policy analysis ($130,000) NCPA disseminates climate science scepticism.
American council on science and health ($113,800) Has published papers claiming that cutting greenhouse emissions would be detrimental to public health.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

18 Comments so far
Show AllIt is not all that surprising that one of the leading financiers of the American far right wing (right up there with Richard Mellon Scaife), the Koch family & their namesake company, Koch Industries, are funding astro-turf lobbying and phony science against global warming. They are doing it for a very simple reason, to protect their bottom line.
Skeptic, please, not climate septic group. Although they are pretty fetid sewer dwellers.
It's a Brit thing.
If I remember correctly, Koch was one of the primary beneficiaries of the Iraq War, getting essentially no-bid contracts to exploit Iraqi oil.
So, these skeptic-funded arguments are, in a roundabout way, our tax dollars at work...
Koch Industries Inc subsidiaries produce a number of household products, including Nouvelle recycled toilet paper and LYCRA brand fibers. Georgia Pacific (owned by Koch) produces the following consumer products:
Quilted Northern bathroom tissue
Angel Soft bathroom tissue
Brawny paper towels
Vanity Fair serving products
Dixie cups, plates, and napkins
The trick is to get half of your local stores to stop carrying these items. Whenever you see them, complain. Your local store may have a manager who really doesn't like the climate smears, but just didn't know about the consumer products.
If that doesn't work, complain outside the store to shoppers.
If the Kochs don't want to be good corporate citizens in America, then no store has to carry their stuff. Fair enough?
I just put "Mr Yuck" stickers on them...
Thanks for that. I'll talk to my supermarket manager this weekend.
"A Greenpeace investigation has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe."
That's hard to believe. I mean, give me some time to absorb it fully. Okay, I'm done.
*grins*
Looking at this with perspective. Funding for AGW has exceeded 52 BILLION dollars....and someone is upset with 73 million?
If the science was as robust as that 52 billion should provide, one would think that there could be no dispute.
Yet, within leading climate scientists, there certainly is dispute.
Somebody certainly isn't doing a serious amount of reading of "leading climate scientists" to make such a doofus statement. Most of you will live another 50 years to see the shit hit the fan. Remember us.
$52 billion is a lot. Source?
Absolutely hilarious that you'd think the funding is what makes the science "robust" - way to show your cards, Sigurdur! Maybe in global warming "skeptic" world one can pay for "robustness", but really, this isn't for serious people...
Evidence, and plenty of it, plus intelligent, penetrating analysis of that evidence, is what makes science robust.
On the other hand, the fact that it's taken that much funding (though I don't begin to assume your numbers are correct - they might be, but you supply no supporting references) just to come to a kind of consensus on the topic of AGW, should show us a good example of real science at work. The funny thing is, you're absolutely correct when you cite that there is dispute - there certainly is, and it's a healthy search for the truth that supports it. But what, exactly, is the dispute? The essential facts of global warming have been confirmed - but there is a lot to discuss in terms of future impact and how exactly climate change will affect humanity. (see this link: http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/global-effects/data1.html ) Conflating that discourse with the idea that the whole project of climate change science is somehow suspect is a very lazy (and slippery) mode of irrational thinking.
"Funding for AGW has exceeded 52 BILLION dollars."
I'm taking you to the mat. Source, please, so that I can shoot it down. Are you on crack?
Here is a hint to let you know what you are up against. The US spends more on climate- change research and education than any other government. H.R. 2847 was passed by the House in 2009 and appropriated $120M (a record amount) for NOAA, NASA, NSF, NAS, EDA and NIST.
It is estimated that globally, world governments spend less than $200 million annually for climate change (not AGW) research and education. At current rates of spending, your claim of $52B would mean that the world has been funding climate-change research for over 250 years!
Freakin' Limbaugh ditto-crack-head.
"Yet, within leading climate scientists, there certainly is dispute."
Names of these "leading climate scientists" please.
Almost all climate-change scientists publishing in peer-reviewed literature agree that we are undergoing rapid climate change. The only thing that is debated by these scientists are the predictions for the end-game.
People who do not publish in peer-reviewed literature are not scientists.
Freakin' Limbaugh ditto-crack-head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Last I heard, about 40% of Americans believed climate change was seriously in doubt or not true. Before anyone gets impressed by that, may I suggest that if holocaust deniers or moon landing deniers had that kind of funding, 40% of Americans would be in serious doubt that the holocaust or moon landings happened.
"The rich are different. They have money."
-30-