• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
State Global Warming Laws: How Foundation Grants Affect Climate Policy
 

State Global Warming Laws: How Foundation Grants Affect Climate Policy

on

  • 128 views

“If the feds won’t act, make the ...

“If the feds won’t act, make the
states do it!” That’s the environmental
movement’s latest demand. During the last
decade green groups have repeatedly failed
to win support from Congress and the White
House for national and international
controls on greenhouse gas emissions. But
the activists won’t give up and they are now
playing politics in state capitals. Myron
Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
puts it succinctly: Global warming alarmists
want to pass “50 mini-Kyotos.”
What is less well-understood is the role
private philanthropy plays in promoting
state government climate change regulation.
When states pass emissions laws mandating
compliance from individuals and
industry, who would suspect that private
foundations are behind the effort?

Statistics

Views

Total Views
128
Views on SlideShare
128
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    State Global Warming Laws: How Foundation Grants Affect Climate Policy State Global Warming Laws: How Foundation Grants Affect Climate Policy Document Transcript

    • June 2006CONTENTSState Global Warming LawsPage 1Philanthropy NotesPage 8New York Governor George Pataki (left). Pataki has saddled New York andNew England with costly global warming regulations.Summary: “If the feds won’t act, make thestates do it!” That’s the environmentalmovement’s latest demand. During the lastdecadegreengroupshaverepeatedlyfailedto win support from Congress and the WhiteHouse for national and internationalcontrols on greenhouse gas emissions. Butthe activists won’t give up and they are nowplaying politics in state capitals. MyronEbelloftheCompetitiveEnterpriseInstituteputsitsuccinctly:Globalwarmingalarmistswant to pass “50 mini-Kyotos.”What is less well-understood is the roleprivate philanthropy plays in promotingstate government climate change regula-tion. When states pass emissions laws man-dating compliance from individuals andindustry, who would suspect that privatefoundations are behind the effort?The Kyoto Protocol (named after theJapanese city in which it wasnegotiated in 1997) requires that na-tions agreeing to its provisions reduce theirgreenhouse gas emission by about 5.2 per-cent below 1990 levels by the year 2012.PresidentBillClintonsignedtheprotocolbutnever sent it to the Senate for ratification.Why? Because the Senate preemptivelyvoted 95-0 to oppose any international mea-sures on global warming that harm the U.S.economy. When President George W. Bushtookofficein2001hecalledtheKyotoProto-col “fatally flawed” and withdrew the U.S.signature.ArecentattemptbySenatorsJohnMcCain and Joseph Lieberman to establishlessstringentemissionsstandards—ridiculedas Kyoto-Lite by its opponents—was de-feated 43-55 in the Senate in 2003.State Global Warming LawsHow Foundation Grants Affect Climate PolicyBy David Hogberg and James DellingerThe Bush Administration has opted in-steadtopromotevoluntaryagreements. One,dubbedthe“Asia-PacificPartnershiponCleanDevelopment and Climate,” encourages thetransfer of greenhouse-gas reducing tech-nologies between the U.S., India, Australia,China, Japan and South Korea and wouldinvolve the private sector in reducing green-house gases.But that’s not good enough for the envi-ronmental movement. With its global warm-ingagendastalledonthenationallevel,greengroups are trekking to state capitals to pres-surelawmakerstorequiremandatorycapsonthe emission of carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gases. Funded heavily by majorphilanthropic foundations, particularly theEnergyFoundationand,toalesserextent,thePew Charitable Trusts, the big guns of theenvironmental movement have won an im-pressive victory: In 2005 seven states in theNortheast agreed to limit greenhouse gasesby participating in a Regional GreenhouseGasInitiative,orRGGI.Greengroupsarenowmoving to create similar state and regionalagreements on the West Coast and in theSouth and Midwest.
    • FoundationWatch2 June 2006Editor: Matthew VadumPublisher: Terrence ScanlonFoundation Watchis published by Capital ResearchCenter, a non-partisan education andresearch organization, classified bythe IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity.Address:1513 16th Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20036-1480Phone: (202) 483-6900Long-Distance: (800) 459-3950E-mail Address:mvadum@capitalresearch.orgWeb Site:http://www.capitalresearch.orgReprints are available for $2.50 prepaidto Capital Research Center.Critics in the scientific community ob-serve that there is not enough hard evidenceto justify the drastic policies proposed byglobal warming alarmists. But advocacygroupsandtheirfoundationfundersarestam-peding local communities and state lawmak-ers into taking actions they will regret.NewYorkandNewEnglandTakethePledgeIn December 2005, the governors of Con-necticut, Delaware, Maine, New York, NewJersey,NewHampshireandVermont arrivedat a far-reaching agreement. They said thatby the year 2019 their states would cut theirgreenhouse gas emissions by ten percentbelow 1990 levels using a “cap-and-trade”system.Under“cap-and-trade”everypowerplant in the RGGI states would have a fixedlimit on the amount of greenhouse gases itcould emit. Power plants that exceeded theamountcould purchase“credits”frompowerplants that emitted less than their prescribedlimit. Although RGGI currently applies onlytoabout180powerplants,itisestimatedthatiteventuallycouldincludesome600electric-ity generators that emit greenhouse gases.Interestingly, the governors of Massachu-setts and Rhode Island declined to join theagreement,arguingthatthepricetheirpowerplants would have to pay to purchase thecreditswastoohigh.Accordingtotheagree-ment, each state legislature has to pass lawsby December 31, 2008 to conform to RGGI,which is set to take effect on January 1, 2009.RGGI is the culmination of much pushingand pulling in Northeastern state capitals. In1998,theheadofNewJersey’sDepartmentofEnvironmental Protection issued an execu-tive order with the approval of GovernorChristine Todd Whitman. CommissionerRobertShinnpledgedtoreduceNewJersey’sgreenhouse gas emissions to 3.5 percentbelow 1990 levels by 2005. The followingyear, New York Governor George Pataki alsotook a pledge: He promised to reduce mer-cury emissions by 50 percent more than fed-eral standards. That action gave environ-mentalists the bright idea to pressure him topledgetoputcapsoncarbondioxideaswell.Patakiestablishedataskforcetolookintotheissue in June 2001. Meanwhile, in August2001, six states—Connecticut, Maine, Mas-sachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,and Vermont—entered into a non-bindingagreement with five Canadian provinces toreduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990levels by 2010.Then in June 2003, Governor Pataki askedthe six New England states as well as Dela-ware,Maryland,NewJerseyandPennsylva-nia to join New York in formulating a plan toreducegreenhousegases.Nineoftheelevenstates initially participated in the RegionalGreenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI. (Penn-sylvania opted only to observe the processwhileMarylandwillnotbecomeaparticipantuntil 2007.) Meetings began in May 2004.There is a precedent for Northeastern statecooperation on pollution problems.NESCAUM—theNortheastStatesforCoor-dinated Air Use Management—is a non-profit consortium created in 1967 and all thestatesfromMainetoMaryland(exceptDela-ware) use it to deal with air pollution causedby their power plants. In the new regionalinitiative NESCAUM is supposed to estab-lish the greenhouse gas database or registrywhere power plants will record their green-housegasemissionsandtracktheirprogressin reducing them.The Energy Foundation, Pew Target theStatesClearly, the governors and many otherstate lawmakers are eager to demonstratethat they are alarmed by global warming.They want the power to increase the regula-tionsonutilitiesthatemitgreenhousegases.What’slessunderstood,however,istheroleprivate philanthropy plays in pressuringpolicymakers to accept the claims of climatealarmists. RGGI is the product of lengthydeliberations that included not only stateofficials but many other so-called “stake-holders”—including major environmentalgroups.TheEnergyFoundationandthePewChari-tableTrustsaretwoofthebiggestfundersofstate-level climate change initiatives. TheEnergyFoundation,whichpartnerswithPewand the David and Lucile Packard Founda-tion on a joint climate program, acknowl-edges that the “policy and education effortssupported by this program are expressly fo-cused on mitigating global warming.” (Seetheir Website at http://www.ef.org/programs.cfm?program=climate.) Thefocusofitsfundingison“stateandregionalcarboncap-and-trade programs” and “state and re-gional greenhouse gas plans and targets.”Since 2001 the Energy Foundation hasdistributedover75grantstotalingmorethan$5.6 million for state climate change initia-tives. (For more on the Energy Foundationsee the January 2006 Foundation Watch.)This includes $260,000 the foundation gaveNESCAUMin2002-2004todevelopthegreen-house gas registry—the task assigned to itunder RGGI—and another $25,000 it gaveNESCAUM to develop a cap-and-trade pro-gram. In 2001 the Energy Foundation alsogave $157,000 to an environmental groupcalled Northeast States Clean Air Founda-tion to “support NESCAUM’s work on aNortheast regional goal for greenhouse gasreduction.” To date, the David and LucilePackard Foundation has made a single$250,000grant—totheEnergyFoundationin2004—for work on RGGI.The Energy Foundation also makes grantsto environmental advocacy groups to createthe appearance of a public clamor for morestate global warming regulations. It gave theNatural Resources Defense Council a totalof $300,000 in 2003-2004 to “advocate for acarbon cap-and-trade system in the North-east, and to strengthen the West Coast Cli-
    • 3June 2006FoundationWatchFor frequent updates on environmental groups,nonprofits, foundations, and labor unions, check out theCRC-Greenwatch Blog atwww.capitalresearch.org/blogThe RegionalGreenhouse GasInitiative is theproduct of lengthydeliberations thatincluded not onlystate officials butmany other so-called“stakeholders”—including majorenvironmental groups.mate Initiative.” Environment Northeast got$80,000 in 2004 to “help develop a climatechange roadmap for New England and toserve as a stakeholder to” RGGI. The Centerfor Public Interest Research took in $300,000in 2003-2004 to support a coalition called theNewEnglandClimateActionProjectforworkon “regional solutions to climate change.” Itgave $50,000 to the Union of ConcernedScientists in 2004 to “design and implementthe [RGGI] carbon market in the Northeast,”and it distributed annual $50,000 grants toEnvironmental Advocates of New York in2002through2004toaffectNortheastclimatechangepolicies.(Forafulllistofstateclimatechange grants, see the GreenWatch High-lightforJune2,2006atwww.greenwatch.org.)The Pew Charitable Trusts gives fewergrants to outside state-level climate changeprojects. That’s because the $4 billion phil-anthropic foundation converted itself into apublic charity in 2004, and it has been verygenerous to itself. Of the more than $10.2million Pew has spent on climate changeprogramssince2002,thebulk—$9.7million—supportsPew’sownStrategiesfortheGlobalEnvironment. This is an umbrella organiza-tion for the Pew Center on Global ClimateChange.The Pew Center dedicates an entire por-tion of its website (http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/state_policy/index.cfm) to state climatechange policies. It contains announcementsabout Pew-sponsored workshops, policyreports, and a database of state and localprograms that claim to reduce greenhousegas emissions. The Pew Center is also a“stakeholder”intheRGGIprocess.ItsDirec-tor of Innovative Solutions, former ClintonWhite House staffer Judi Greenwald, hasattended all RGGI workshops and made apresentation on allocating carbon-dioxidecreditsataJune2004workshop.(Formoreonthe Pew Center on Global Climate Change,see the May 2004 Foundation Watch.)Sometimes it seems as if the Pew programsand the Energy Foundation grant recipientsare more involved in RGGI than even thestates themselves. Dale Bryk, senior attor-neyattheNaturalResourcesDefenseCoun-cil, and Derek Murrow, director of policyanalysis at Environment Northeast, have at-tendedeveryRGGIworkshopandtheymaderecommendations at a May 2006 workshopdealing with the cap-and-trade system. TheUnion of Concerned Scientists, Public Inter-estResearchGroup,AmericanCouncilforanEnergy Efficient Economy, EnvironmentalAdvocates of New York, and the Conserva-tion Law Foundation—all Energy Founda-tion grantees—have made themselves play-ers in the RGGI policy process. The NaturalResources Defense Council has gone theextramile:the501(c)(3)organizationhaslob-biedtheNewYorkstategovernmentonRGGI.“Grassroots” groups are also in formationtopressurestatepolicymakers.AgroupcalledClean Air-Cool Planet, focuses its programson the nine states that first joined RGGI. Itsprogramsaresupposedto“buildconstituen-cies for effective climate policies and ac-tions” by targeting local city governments,businessesandcollegecampuses.CleanAir-CoolPlanetwarnsthatglobalwarmingthreat-enslocalindustriesandagriculture.Andwoeunto pancake-eaters: In Vermont one of itsbumper-stickerssays,“SaveOurSyrup:StopGlobal Warming.” The group bestowed its“Climate Champion” award on GovernorPatakilastyear.CleanAir-CoolPlanetdoesn’tpass the hat to fund its programs. It received$210,000fromtheEnergyFoundationin2003-2004.West Coast Low Carbon DietOf course no self-respecting environmen-talistgroupignoresCaliforniaandthePacificNorthwest. While green groups pressed
    • FoundationWatch4 June 2006Governor Pataki to undertake a Northeastregional approach to global warming, theycheered on Governors Gray Davis, TedKulongoskiandGaryLocke,whoinSeptem-ber 2003 launched a West Coast GovernorsGlobal Warming Initiative (WCGGWI). Thatinitiative has developed a laundry list ofproposals, which includes setting up com-mon standards for measuring greenhousegas emissions and suggestions on how touse state purchasing power to promote fuelefficiency. WCGGWI staff reports recom-mendthatthestatescollaborateincomingupwith ways to update building energy codes,cut emissions on state vehicle fleets, buymore hybrid cars and trucks, and set uptransportation electrification sites at truckstops along the 1380 mile-long I-5 highwaycorridor. The three governors’ offices cre-atedaraftoftaskforcesandworkinggroups,which invite environmentalist “stakehold-ers” to join their deliberations.To date WCGGWI has made less progressthan the Northeast regional initiative—GrayDavis’s recall a month after the agreementwas reached was surely a factor—but theWest Coast effort is just as assertive inarguing that changes to the West Coastclimate require new, bold and complex gov-ernment actions.In 1997 Oregon became the only WestCoast state to put a hard cap on CO2 emis-sions by some electricity producers, and itrequired new utilities to cut emissions by 17percent below that achieved by the mostefficient turbine plant. Oregon DemocraticGovernor Ted Kulongoski, elected in 2003,supported Oregon’s many long-standing“smart-growth”policiesrestrictingland-useand road-building. He vowed to factor in thethreat of global warming whenever the statereviews its policies. Kulongoski created aglobalwarmingadvisorygroupwhichissueda 192-page book of recommendations meantto reduce the sources of greenhouse gases.It called on state residents to drive their carslessandusemoremasstransit.Truckdriverswereencouragedtoreducetheirtendencytoidle their vehicles. Engineers and architectsinPortlandwereurgedtodesignmoreenergyefficient “green” buildings, and so on. TheadvisorygroupwarnedOregoniansthattheyneeded to act now or expect “coastal andriver flooding, snowpack declines, lowersummer river flows, impacts to farm andforest productivity” and other ill effects.Some even said global warming could hurtOregon’s burgeoning wine industry. Grow-ers would have to curtail production of thestate’s signature pinot noir, which needs acooler climate, and be forced to producemore—horrors!—merlot.In Washington, Democratic governorsGary Locke and Christine Gregoire, Locke’ssuccessor, followed Oregon’s example bypursuing their own state CO2 “mitigation”policies (i.e., policies to reduce man-madesources of carbon dioxide). They too put ahard cap on CO2 emitted from new powerplants subject to state approval, requiringthem to reduce emissions by 20 percent.Gregoire also imposed on Washington carowners California’s CO2 vehicle emissionstandards, the toughest in the nation.One of the biggest promoters of climatechange policy in the Northwest is the Olym-pia, Washington-based Climate Solutions.Claiming that its mission is “to stop globalwarming at the earliest point possible byhelping the Pacific Northwest and BritishColumbia become world leaders in practicalandprofitablesolutions,”itachievesthisviaits“NorthwestClimateConnection”project.The Northwest Climate Connection is a coa-lition of environmental groups, businesses,and local governments “working together todemonstratehowprotectingtheclimatehelpsus build a healthier, more sustainable re-gion.” Since 2003, Climate Solutions hasreceived $250,000 from the Energy Founda-tion to promote climate change solutions inthe Pacific Northwest.California Dreamin’Ultimately, however, everything comesdown to California. Just like Hollywood’sfilmmakers,thestate’sglobalwarminglobbyis infatuated with public relations and mar-ketinggimmicks.Nonprofitadvocacygroupsand their foundation funders are doing ev-erything possible to persuade energy-de-pendent Californians to accept a carbon-constrictedlifestyle.FoundationsknowCali-forniaisthekey,andtheyhavebeenpouringmoneyintothestate.Forinstance,theHewlettand Packard foundations each donated$150,000 the Union of Concerned Scientistsin 2003 for “analysis of climate change inCalifornia and to support state based actionto reduce global warming emissions.” TheEnergy Foundation contributed $36,000 in2003totheNaturalResourcesDefenseCoun-cilto“modeltheimpactofglobalwarmingonozone levels in three California cities” andanother $100,000 in 2004 to the Union ofConcerned Scientists to “study the impactsof climate change on California.”The Energy Foundation gave $200,000in 2001 to the Center for Energy Efficiencyand Renewable Technologies (CEERT) in“support of start-up of California’s volun-tarygreenhousegasregistry.”ThenonprofitCaliforniaClimateActionRegistry,createdin2001bylegislationsignedbyGovernorGrayDavis, is supposed to help businesses, mu-nicipalgovernmentsandpublicutilitieslearnmore about the causes of global warming—and their legal liabilities. It allows them toregistertheirowngreenhousegasemissions,voluntarily, inordertoreceivehelpincuttingthem. But of course environmental groupsuse the data it collects to lobby for moregovernment controls.One of the biggest promoters of climate changepolicy in the Northwest is the Olympia, Wash-ington-based Climate Solutions. Since 2003,Climate Solutions has received $250,000 fromthe Energy Foundation to promote climatechange solutions in the Pacific Northwest.
    • 5June 2006FoundationWatchFree market supporters got their hopes upwhen Arnold Schwarzenegger replacedDavis, but Ahnuld too has jumped on theclimate action bandwagon. Last June hesigned an executive order calling for volun-tary emission-reduction targets. However,the Governor must now compete with theDemocratic-led State Assembly to show hisconcern. On April 3, the Democrats intro-duced legislation to turn Schwarzenegger’svoluntary goals into mandatory caps. So fartheGovernorhasbeencarefultoavoidreject-ingoutrighttheDemocrats’“cap-and-trade”bill, which would cut emissions from powerplants and refineries to 1990 levels by theyear 2025.If California adopts cap-and-trade, therewill be little to stand in the way of efforts tomake the state-based policy a nationwideone. Despite the Bush Administration’s op-position to intrusive government man-dates, American industry may yet be tied upbyfifty“mini-Kyotos.”It’simportanttonotethat global warming activists have no realinterestincraftinglocalandregionalpolicies.Rather, they hope that by creating a “policypatchwork” of state laws, large corporationswill opt to support a national policy of man-dated emission controls. The goal is federalpreemption,notfederalism.Already,GeneralElectric, Shell, and the two largest U.S. utili-ties,ExelonandDukeEnergy,haveindicatedthat they would welcome or accept manda-torycapsontheirgreenhousegasemissions.Wal-Mart now speaks in favor of carboncaps.“What will happen, of course, is that Cali-forniawilldoitsthing,andthenNewEnglandwill start to weigh in, New York state, andpretty soon we’ll end up with a patchwork,”FordMotorCompanyCEOWilliamClayFord,Jr. has said. “I really would like to have anationalapproachtothis,becauseotherwiseweandothermanufacturerswillhaveareallyhard time responding.”Economic CostsEnvironmentalists love to claim that im-posing restrictions on carbon di-oxide will have little to no impacton the U.S. economy. Some evenargue that regulation will createmore jobs. But more honest envi-ronmentalists acknowledge thatreducingcarbondioxidewilllikelyhave an adverse impact on eco-nomicgrowth.InterviewedbytheWashington Post, EileenClaussen, President of the PewCenteronClimateChange,admit-ted that “a major transition awayfrom fossil fuels will not be free.”One early study by WhartonEconometric Forecasting Asso-ciatesfoundthatstateeconomieswould be hurt if the U.S. adoptedtheKyototreaty’scarbonrestric-tions. New York would lose140,000jobsand$7.1billionintaxrevenue as unemployment roseto 7.8 percent. Washington Statecould lose nearly 47,000 jobs and$2.4 billion in tax revenue andunemployment would approach6.8 percent.A more recent American Council for Capi-tal Formation study found that RGGI wouldincrease the costs of electricity in participat-ingstatesbyanaverageof35percentin2010and39percentin2020.Industrialnaturalgasprices could rise by 111 percent in 2010 and119 percent in 2020. Gasoline prices couldcontinue to increase by 39 percent in 2010and 44 percent in 2020.Job losses would also rise to near 192,000by 2010 and 218,000 by 2020. As energygrows more costly job creators may find thatthey can stay profitable only by cutting jobsormovingtolessexpensivelocations.LossestoNortheasterngrossstateproductcouldbe1.1 percent in 2010 and 1.9 percent in 2020.Finally, the purchasing power of typicalhouseholds in Northeastern states will suf-fer. A typical family could face erosion inpurchasing power averaging $2,600 in 2010and $3,000 in 2020 (in 1999 dollars).There has been no comparable analysis ofthe WCGGWI. However, studies of the Cali-Will Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (pictured above with actor Jackie Chan) impose globalwarming restrictions similar to RGGI on California, Oregon, and Washington?
    • FoundationWatch6 June 2006The leaders of the “anti-war” movementtoday are leftists who oppose capitalismand believe in socialism. Many are com-munists. At root, they are anti-Americanrather than anti-war. Anti-war groups havetheir own outlets for propaganda, employsophisticated tactics and exploit moderninformation technology to give their mes-sages instant and global reach. In thisimportant new book from Capital ResearchCenter, international affairs expert Dr.John J. Tierney traces the leftist ideologi-cal roots of this influential movement, andexposes its trategies and objectives.Single copy $20Three or more only $15 each.To order, call800-459-3950or mail your check and order to:Capital Research Center1513 16th Street, NWWashington, DC 20036fornia law signed by then-Governor GrayDavis found that mandated reductions ingreenhouse gas auto emissions would addmore than $1,000 to the average sticker priceof every new car and light truck sold in thestate, according to the California Air Re-sources Board (CARB). Published media re-portsbythegroupSierraResearchconcludethatregulationwilladdmorelike$3,000totheaverage price of cars and light trucks inCaliforniaandinotherstatesthatadoptCali-fornia standards.Economists who say, “There is no suchthing as a free lunch,” mean it. The U.S.economy is heavily dependent on technolo-gies that produce carbon dioxide. Govern-ment policies restricting its production willnot be cost-free. Indeed, economic growthmay come to a standstill.Which State Is Next?As climate change policies in the North-east and West become reality, where willglobal-warming alarmists turn their attentionnext? One state already in their crosshairs isNorth Carolina.In 2005, the North Carolina General As-sembly passed, and Governor Mike Easleysignedintolaw,abillthatestablisheda“Leg-islative Commission On Global ClimateChange.” The Commission is charged withstudying “issues related to global warming,the emerging carbon economy, and whetherit is appropriate and desirable for the state toestablish a global warming pollutant reduc-tion goal.” Chances are good that the com-mission will find it “appropriate and desir-able” for North Carolina to reduce green-house gases. As the free-market North Caro-lina-based John Locke Foun-dation notes, the Commissioncontain “representatives fromfourleft-of-centerenvironmen-talpressuregroups—Environ-mental Defense, the SouthernAlliance for Clean Energy, theNorthCarolinaCoastalFedera-tion, and the North CarolinaConservation Council. All ofthese groups hold alarmist po-sitions on global warming andadvocate extensive regulationof private decision-making tocombatthethreatthattheyclaimclimate change poses.” TheJohn Locke Foundation alsonotes that there are “no econo-mists on the commission,” and“only one [member], the stateclimatologistofNorthCarolina,Dr. Sethu Raman, has a spe-cialty in climate-related sci-ences.”Environmental Defense hasbeen pushing climate changeaction in North Carolina for anumber of years. In 2003, it re-leased an extensive report en-titled “Understanding GlobalWarming for North Carolina”recommendingthat“NorthCaro-lina leaders should establish agoal to reduce global warmingpollutants.” EnvironmentalDefense has lobbied the state’s GeneralAssembly,althoughlobbyingreportsdonotspecify if climate-change legislation was in-cluded.The Energy Foundation also has its fin-gerprints on North Carolina. Another mem-ber of the Commission, the Southern Alli-ance for Clean Energy, received a $100,000grantfromtheEnergyFoundationin2003“toeducatepolicymakersaboutnear-termstepsNorth Carolina can take on climate change.”It received another $100,000 grant from theEnergy Foundation in 2004 “to assist in thedevelopment of a state climate change planto reduce global warming pollution in NorthCarolina.” On its website, the Boston-basedCleanAirTaskForcenotesthatithasworkedwith Environmental Defense and the South-ern Alliance for Clean Energy on global-warming policies in North Carolina. In 2003,the Energy Foundation gave a $35,000 grantto the Clean Air Task Force “to providetechnicalsupportforstateclimateadvocatesin Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina.”AlthoughEnvironmentalDefensereceivesagreat deal of funding from the Energy Foun-dation(over$4millionsince1999),andsomeof it is for global warming campaigns, nonewas specifically dedicated for activity inNorth Carolina.Besides North Carolina, global warmingalarmists have other states in their sights.Here is a summary of other states beingtargeted:Pennsylvania: The Energy FoundationEileen Claussen, President of the PewCenter on Climate Change. Claussenadmits “a major transition away fromfossil fuels will not be free.”
    • 7June 2006FoundationWatchYou can probe thebackgrounds of many of theorganizations profiled inFoundation Watchby visiting ouronline database atwww.capitalresearch.orgYou can also retrieve past issues ofCRC newsletters, includingOrganization TrendsFoundation WatchLabor WatchCompassion and CulturePast issues may be ordered for $2.50each. Orders must be prepaid. Forinformation or credit card orders, call(800) 459-3950.Or mail your check to:Capital Research Center,1513 16th Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036The work of theCapital Research Centercontinues solely throughthe generosity of ourcontributors.Please rememberCapital Research Centerin your will and estateplanning. Thank you foryour support.Terrence Scanlon, PresidentFWseems eager to see Pennsylvania becomemore than just an observer in the RGGI. In2003,itgave$34,000tothePittsburgh-basedEnterprising Environmental Solutions “toassessoptionsforacrediblegreenhousegasregistryforPennsylvania”and$50,000tothePennsylvaniaEnvironmentalCouncilto“de-velopaclimatechangeroadmapforPennsyl-vania, in consultation with key stakehold-ers.” In 2004 it gave $48,000 to Citizens forPennsylvania’sFutureto“supportthe‘CoolPennsylvaniaCampaign’andlaytheground-work for global warming policies in Pennsyl-vania.” However, efforts in the KeystoneState suffered a blow in February when theState Senate voted 34-13 to block GovernorEd Rendell’s attempt to impose restrictivevehicle emission standards.Texas: Although Texas seems an unlikelytarget,theLoneStarStatehasalreadyadoptedrenewable energy mandates and a green-house gas registry. Thus, it should come asno surprise that in 2001 the Energy Founda-tion gave $45,000 to Public Citizen to “sup-port advocacy for a strong statewide globalwarming plan in Texas.” Also, the TurnerFoundation gave $75,000 for “support ofstate-based advocacy around Texas’s glo-bal warming plan.”Midwest: TheLakeMichiganAirDirectors’Consortium—which includes Illinois, Indi-ana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin—is al-ready developing a voluntary greenhousegas registry. It received $100,000 for thatpurpose from the Joyce Foundation in Chi-cago in 2005. The Joyce Foundation gavegrants in 2003 to the Pew Center on ClimateChange ($57,500) to “support a meeting forGreat Lakes business leaders and govern-ment regulators to discuss possible stateresponses to climate change” and to theUnion of Concerned Scientists ($50,000) to“briefstateandlocalofficialsonthefindingsof its new report on the effects of climatechange on the waters of the Great Lakes.”The Energy Foundation has also gotten intotheactintheMidwest.Itgave$75,000in2001to the Environmental Law and Policy CenterfortheMidwestto“expandtheGlobalWarm-ing Leadership Council, a business coalitiondedicated to promoting clean energy in theMidwest”and$15,000in2004totheRegentsof the University of Michigan to “create aMichigan state greenhouse gas inventory.”ConclusionIt is tempting for those living in moreconservativestatestodismissclimatechangepolicymaking as largely a project of BlueState America. That would be a mistake fortwo reasons. First, by tempting so manyofficials onto the global-warming-alarmismbandwagon,theenvironmentalistswinmorecredibility for their cause. When governorslike George Pataki and Arnold Schwarze-negger advocate in favor of global warmingregulations,theylendtheirprestigetoglobalwarming alarmism in all states.Second, a state-by-state approach is ashrewdmaneuvertobuildsupportforglobalwarmingregulationsatthefederallevel.Statesthat adopt stringent restrictions on green-house gases will soon find themselves at aneconomic disadvantage with states that donot. Their officials will become afraid thattheir economies will be uncompetitive. Andthat will put the pressure on federal lawmak-ers to pass national greenhouse gas restric-tions that apply to all states to “level theplaying field.” In effect, by using the statesenvironmentalists are building a powerfulconstituency for regulations at the nationallevel.When the Bush Administration quashedtheKyotoProtocol,itpreventedpolicymed-dling in an area that requires both carefulscienceandopennesstoprivatesectortech-nological innovation. If there is man-madeA state-by-stateapproach is a shrewdmaneuver to buildsupport for globalwarming regulations atthe federal level. It willput the pressure onfederal lawmakers topass nationalgreenhouse gasrestrictions that apply toall states.global warming, then efficient solutionsshould be developed in the marketplace—not imposed by fiat. Unfortunately, somefoundation grant-makers think otherwise.David Hogberg editsCapitalResearchCenter online research programs “Edu-cation Watch” and “Greenwatch.”JamesDellinger is Research Associate at CRC .
    • FoundationWatch8 June 2006The newly-elected chairman of the Council on Foundations is Maxwell King, president of the Heinz Endow-ments. At the Council’s annual meeting in Pittsburgh last month, King announced that the old quiet, cautiousculture of philanthropy must give way to one which is “proactive, aggressive and very public.” In 2004 King wasoutspoken in denouncing Capital Research Center for its reports on the philanthropy of Teresa Heinz Kerry,chairman of the Howard Heinz Endowment and a member of the Vira I. Heinz Endowment board.Speakers at this year’s Council on Foundations meeting included Teresa Heinz Kerry, Newt Gingrich andGeorge Soros, chairman of the Open Society Institute and Soros Foundations Network. Commenting onthe nature of open societies, Soros noted that he agrees with Vice President Cheneythat Russia is becominga threat to Europe. However, he says the policies in Russia that worry Cheney “also apply to our society now.”The major tax bill just passed by Congress contains almost none of the proposals to change the tax lawsgoverning charities that were the subject of Senate Finance Committee hearings last year. Senate-passedmeasures to allow deductions for donors who do not itemize, to let donors contribute to charities from theirIRAs without paying tax, and to tighten rules on conservation easements and donor-advised funds were alldropped in the conference committee.The Phillips Foundation has announced that fellowships totaling $284,000 will go to eight young journalists.The Foundation and Thomas l. Phillips, chairman of Phillips International, Inc., hosted a dinner for the awardrecipients at the National Press Club on May 9. Past winners include Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayesand Tim Carney, author of The Big Rip-Off: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money forth-coming from John Wiley & Sons. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation assist with the funding of thefellowships.Bob Barker, host of the TV game show “The Price Is Right,” has contributed $1 million to Georgetown Univer-sity Law Center for the study of animal rights law. “All of us interested in making the world a better place foranimals are delighted to have law schools of the stature of Georgetown University Law Center becomingincreasingly involved in animal rights law,” said Barker. What other organizations could enjoy Barker’s lar-gesse? People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, come on down!As mentioned in last month’s “Philanthropy Notes,” Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox is probing the FordFoundation, claiming it owes Henry Ford’s home state support for local charities. But in the May 16 New YorkTimes, National Review reporter John J. Miller takes issue with Cox’s actions. “[W]hatever its flaws, the FordFoundation, which was started by Henry’s son, Edsel, is a private institution in a free society. It should not haveto endure political shakedowns, even when they come from well-meaning conservatives,” writes Miller. “Con-servatives may be tempted to think they stand to gain from any attack on the Ford Foundation, but in reality theyhave much to lose.” Miller’s point: If conservatives support Cox’s action, what defense will there be when aliberal attorney general sets his sight on a conservative foundation?Is Google funding MoveOn.org? Say it isn’t so. According to the American Spectator, the popular searchengine is funding leftwing MoveOn.org to build grassroots support for “Net Neutrality” legislation, a form ofprotectionism for online companies like Google and Yahoo! A bill in Congress would prevent high-speednetwork operators such as Comcast and ATT from offering services such as video downloads or enhancedemail, thereby competing with internet giants like Google. Reportedly, Google has become MoveOn.org’slargest corporate backer, to the tune of $1 million.PhilanthropyNotes