The Koch brothers, Charles and David Koch, are the richest men in the US with a combined net worth of $80.2 billion from their fossil fuel company Koch Industries. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars influencing US politics to stop policies addressing climate change. This has paralyzed climate policy in the US and undermined international climate negotiations. The document discusses the Koch brothers' political spending and influence, how it has polarized the climate debate, and their role in blocking progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions both domestically and globally.
The document discusses the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement aimed at addressing climate change by regulating greenhouse gas emissions. It examines the Kyoto Protocol's effectiveness by comparing it to other international environmental agreements like the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and Montreal Protocol. The document analyzes climate change and greenhouse gas emissions as a tragedy of the commons problem. It evaluates the Kyoto Protocol's mechanisms for regulating emissions and incentivizing reductions, finding they have faced challenges in achieving emissions targets due to competing interests among nations and industries.
This document discusses evidence that contradicts claims of human-caused global warming and instead suggests that the climate is cooling. It presents data showing that global temperatures have declined since 1998 despite rising CO2 levels. Several factors are proposed to have a greater influence on the climate than CO2, including solar activity and cosmic rays. Charts are presented comparing solar irradiance and temperature in various regions over 120 years, showing a close correlation. The document argues that recent cooling trends and forecasts of future cooling do not match the projections of global warming made by the IPCC.
This document provides a summary of climate change regulation and litigation over the past decade. It describes how the issue has remained controversial with no resolution in government bodies around the world. The passage discusses early international efforts like the Kyoto Protocol, the impact of the IPCC reports, and some initial state-level actions in the US. It notes the "gridlock" that remains regarding measures to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts. The document sets the stage to analyze this history in more detail over the coming years.
Sustainable development aims to meet the needs of the present without compromising future generations' ability to meet their own needs. It requires balancing social progress, environmental protection, prudent resource use, and economic growth. However, continued economic growth risks depleting natural capital like forests, fisheries, water, and causing environmental degradation like climate change. Measuring wealth in terms of inclusive capital, including natural capital, shows lower growth rates than GDP in many countries due to resource depletion and pollution. Urgent action is needed to transition to more sustainable and equitable models of development and green growth.
The international community finds itself in a situation where existing climate change regimes like the Kyoto Protocol have failed to make meaningful progress, promoted competitiveness over collaboration, and have not balanced climate mitigation with economic development needs. This has stalled negotiations for a new overarching agreement despite the urgency of climate change.
To address these shortcomings, the document recommends a non-binding voluntary agreement with national emission reduction targets. It also proposes an independent monitoring mission and supervisory board to assist states with mitigation and adaptation efforts and facilitate cooperation between developed and developing countries. Previous successful policies show that environmental protection and economic growth can go hand in hand.
1) The lecture will cover the Facebook page link for the class, details about an upcoming quiz exam, Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, the Precautionary Principle, and a video of President Obama's 2014 UN Climate Summit Speech.
2) Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons refers to how individuals acting in their own self-interest can deplete shared limited resources. Examples include overuse of public land and pollution. Solutions involve restricting access and creating incentives for responsible use.
3) The Precautionary Principle is a response to uncertainty about risks to health or the environment. It advocates taking action to avoid potential harm when scientific certainty about risks is lacking.
The document discusses the upcoming debate on global warming in the US Senate. It notes that several amendments on global warming are expected to be proposed as part of consideration of the Senate Energy Bill. It provides counterarguments to the theory of human-caused global warming, citing analyses questioning the scientific consensus on the causes and impacts of climate change. The document recommends several analyses and studies that are skeptical of the view that human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of observed global temperature increases.
1) While developing countries have contributed less to climate change historically than developed countries, the current severity of climate change means all countries must work to cut emissions.
2) Developing countries are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to reliance on agriculture and vulnerability to rising sea levels and natural disasters.
3) It is in developing countries' long-term economic and national security interests to begin lowering emissions now through investments in renewable technology rather than waiting for commitments from developed countries given the likelihood of increasing climate regulations globally in the future.
The document discusses the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement aimed at addressing climate change by regulating greenhouse gas emissions. It examines the Kyoto Protocol's effectiveness by comparing it to other international environmental agreements like the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and Montreal Protocol. The document analyzes climate change and greenhouse gas emissions as a tragedy of the commons problem. It evaluates the Kyoto Protocol's mechanisms for regulating emissions and incentivizing reductions, finding they have faced challenges in achieving emissions targets due to competing interests among nations and industries.
This document discusses evidence that contradicts claims of human-caused global warming and instead suggests that the climate is cooling. It presents data showing that global temperatures have declined since 1998 despite rising CO2 levels. Several factors are proposed to have a greater influence on the climate than CO2, including solar activity and cosmic rays. Charts are presented comparing solar irradiance and temperature in various regions over 120 years, showing a close correlation. The document argues that recent cooling trends and forecasts of future cooling do not match the projections of global warming made by the IPCC.
This document provides a summary of climate change regulation and litigation over the past decade. It describes how the issue has remained controversial with no resolution in government bodies around the world. The passage discusses early international efforts like the Kyoto Protocol, the impact of the IPCC reports, and some initial state-level actions in the US. It notes the "gridlock" that remains regarding measures to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts. The document sets the stage to analyze this history in more detail over the coming years.
Sustainable development aims to meet the needs of the present without compromising future generations' ability to meet their own needs. It requires balancing social progress, environmental protection, prudent resource use, and economic growth. However, continued economic growth risks depleting natural capital like forests, fisheries, water, and causing environmental degradation like climate change. Measuring wealth in terms of inclusive capital, including natural capital, shows lower growth rates than GDP in many countries due to resource depletion and pollution. Urgent action is needed to transition to more sustainable and equitable models of development and green growth.
The international community finds itself in a situation where existing climate change regimes like the Kyoto Protocol have failed to make meaningful progress, promoted competitiveness over collaboration, and have not balanced climate mitigation with economic development needs. This has stalled negotiations for a new overarching agreement despite the urgency of climate change.
To address these shortcomings, the document recommends a non-binding voluntary agreement with national emission reduction targets. It also proposes an independent monitoring mission and supervisory board to assist states with mitigation and adaptation efforts and facilitate cooperation between developed and developing countries. Previous successful policies show that environmental protection and economic growth can go hand in hand.
1) The lecture will cover the Facebook page link for the class, details about an upcoming quiz exam, Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, the Precautionary Principle, and a video of President Obama's 2014 UN Climate Summit Speech.
2) Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons refers to how individuals acting in their own self-interest can deplete shared limited resources. Examples include overuse of public land and pollution. Solutions involve restricting access and creating incentives for responsible use.
3) The Precautionary Principle is a response to uncertainty about risks to health or the environment. It advocates taking action to avoid potential harm when scientific certainty about risks is lacking.
The document discusses the upcoming debate on global warming in the US Senate. It notes that several amendments on global warming are expected to be proposed as part of consideration of the Senate Energy Bill. It provides counterarguments to the theory of human-caused global warming, citing analyses questioning the scientific consensus on the causes and impacts of climate change. The document recommends several analyses and studies that are skeptical of the view that human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of observed global temperature increases.
1) While developing countries have contributed less to climate change historically than developed countries, the current severity of climate change means all countries must work to cut emissions.
2) Developing countries are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to reliance on agriculture and vulnerability to rising sea levels and natural disasters.
3) It is in developing countries' long-term economic and national security interests to begin lowering emissions now through investments in renewable technology rather than waiting for commitments from developed countries given the likelihood of increasing climate regulations globally in the future.
The document discusses how oil has negatively impacted many countries and harmed the environment. While oil provides fuel and energy, it undermines most oil-producing nations by weakening democracy and encouraging corruption. It also pollutes the environment through emissions and oil spills. The example of Nigeria is provided, where oil production in the Niger Delta region has led to widespread pollution and many oil spills dating back decades. This pollution has severely damaged the region's environment and harmed the livelihoods of local communities, yet most see little success in obtaining justice or compensation due to barriers like poverty, lack of legal resources, and corruption.
The document discusses how climate change disproportionately impacts the world's poorest people and communities. It outlines key messages about how climate change is exacerbating hunger, water shortages, and disease. The document calls on readers to contact their members of Congress to advocate for US leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, providing financial assistance for developing countries to adapt to climate impacts, and ensuring corporate climate policies support vulnerable groups.
160416 Should the prevention of long term climate change be put before the de...Sam Norman
The document discusses whether preventing long-term climate change should take priority over the development of LEDCs. It argues that preventing LEDC development in the short-term could help limit global temperature rise to under 2°C by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are significant ethical issues and challenges with implementing this strategy. International cooperation would be required but has often failed due to voluntary components and inadequate funding in climate agreements. Complete prevention of development would also be difficult and prolong living conditions in LEDCs that include high mortality rates and lower life expectancy.
Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change Girish Balachandran
An encapsulation of Losing Earth - The decade we almost stopped climate change - a special report published in New York times by Nathaniel Rich on Aug 1, 2018
- Gordon Brown is launching an unprece ented investigation into the economic and social impacts of climate change and the costs of mitigating it, challenging President Bush's view that addressing climate change would harm economies.
- The investigation, led by Sir Nicholas Stern, will examine the costs of climate change impacts like increased flooding in the UK as well as devastating effects in developing countries. It will also analyze studies showing that mitigating climate change costs less than dealing with unchecked impacts.
- The investigation takes on new urgency after President Bush failed to mention a new climate initiative with Australia, India, China, South Korea and Japan to Tony Blair, seen as a "slap in the face" and attempt to undermine negotiations for
Publication: Climate Diplomacy and Global Democracy, January 2011Africa Cheetah Run
1) The document discusses climate diplomacy and negotiations between countries under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It focuses on the relationship between the US and China and the roles of other major players like the EU, developing nations, and Africa.
2) The US-China relationship is complex, with them sometimes cooperating but also representing divergent historical responsibilities for emissions versus current emissions. Finding common ground between their positions is a challenge for negotiators.
3) The EU aims to be a leader but struggles with internal divisions that prevent it from speaking with one voice. If it overcomes this, it could play a bigger facilitator role.
4) Developing nations and Africa are not united either
1) Diplomatic efforts over the past two decades to control carbon dioxide emissions through agreements like the Kyoto Protocol have largely failed, as emissions continue to rise and the world is warming.
2) A new approach is needed that focuses on shorter-lived climate pollutants like soot, which new science shows cause almost half of current global warming. Reducing these pollutants could lead to more tangible near-term impacts and build credibility in the international regime.
3) At the same time, more work is needed on adaptation strategies to help societies cope with the impacts of climate change that can no longer be avoided, such as by creating networks of local experts and officials on the front lines of adaptation.
The document summarizes perspectives on the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen climate change summit and strategies for moving forward. It notes that relatively weak environmental movements were unable to pressure governments at Copenhagen. It also discusses contradictions between unlimited capitalist growth and the Earth's finite resources, as well as criticisms of market-based solutions to climate change that have largely failed to achieve environmental gains. The document advocates for ecosocialist strategies and building mass movements connecting responses to climate change and economic issues.
Can new technology save us in time? 2. Limits to Growth: Food Crash. Paul H. Carr
The MIT-authored book, "Limits to Growth," projects an economic and food-per-capita collapse. Written in 1972, predictions for the population explosion, water shortages, and non-renewable resource depletion have been accurate to date. Can we afford higher food prices?
COVID-19 & CLIMATE
If one waits until it’s serious, it’s too late.
Mother Nature has the whole world in her hands.
Need Science to understand, diagnose, and predict
Global problem: National boundaries do not matter
Need United Nations (World Health Organization) for collective action
COVID-19 is reducing climate change.
Reduction of fossil fuel burning is:
1. Clearing our atmosphere &
2. 17% in CO2 reduction is slowing global warming.
TIMESCALE AFTER DRASTIC ACTION.
COVID-19: Months for results.
CLIMATE CHANGE REDUCTIONS:
NO2: Cleaner Air In Months
CO2: Many Decades to Reduce:
Sea Level Rise
Heat Waves
Forest Fires,
Hurricane Intensity
CONCLUSION:
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 10 years.
“A stitch in time saves nine.”
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for carbon free electricity, 24/7.
MIT Study. A nuclear buildup could completely decarbonize the electric power structure.
COOL CUMMUNITY SOLUTION
• Capitalistic Carbon Fee plus Dividend. www.CitizensClimateLobby.com
• The COVID-19 low price of oil will help. People used to higher oil prices.
Confront COVID-19 and Climate Change NowPaul H. Carr
COVID-19 & CLIMATE: BOTH GLOBAL, TEMPERATURE INCREASE
If we wait for a crisis, it’s too late:
Time after drastic action: COVID, months;
CLIMATE, century.
The COVID “stay in place” reduced greenhouse emissions up to 17%. Reduced population.
Non-US-Deficit Increasing solution: Carbon fee plus dividend for all.
What we can do: more vegetarian diet, less airline travel, more nuclear reactors
The document summarizes two recent lawsuits filed against the US government regarding climate change policy. One lawsuit claims the EPA is failing to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. The other lawsuit argues that two federal agencies should assess climate impacts when funding overseas fossil fuel projects. Both lawsuits aim to force the government to take stronger action to address climate change.
Could we achieve goal 13 of the sdgs within the existing international econom...Md. Zahirul Islam
Sustainable development (SD) is a pattern of resource use, that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present but also for generations to come (sometimes taught as ELF -Environment, Local people, Future)
This document is an email chain discussing a New York Times editorial on the Bush Administration's position on global warming. The editorial criticizes the administration for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol and rejecting limits on carbon emissions. It notes some encouraging state-level actions but says global warming requires a national response. The emails discuss the administration submitting a new climate report to the UN that describes significant environmental impacts from global warming in the US.
This presentation discusses air quality. Too much doom and gloom is spread about air pollution and not enough is said on actions done by countries like Canada and USA for the past 25+ years to improve air quality in their various countries
Jennie Stephens - Myra Kraft Open Classroom - October 26, 2016neupolicyschool
The document discusses the US role in global environmental governance, with a focus on climate change. It summarizes the US's historical leadership on environmental issues but also periods of lagging behind. It then covers international climate negotiations and agreements from the UNFCCC to the Paris Agreement. It also discusses climate science, denial, and policies of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Renewable energy technology advances are outlined but fossil fuels still dominate global energy.
This document discusses environmental degradation and its causes and effects. It provides 15 causes of environmental degradation including growing population, rapid urbanization, industrialization, deforestation, and pollution. Some key effects mentioned are global warming, ozone depletion, toxic elements in air and water, and damage to aquatic and human life. The document also discusses the concepts of pollution, the greenhouse effect, acid rain, ozone depletion, and the Kyoto Protocol for addressing climate change.
Philanthropy for the Climate-Change Challenge with John P. Holdrenpackard343comm
Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), presented to the David and Lucile Packard Foundation's Board of Trustees on the state of climate policies and action in the United States and worldwide. The Packard Foundation is deeply invested in climate change mitigation efforts and welcomed the opportunity to discuss with Dr. Holdren where philanthropic funding may have the most impact.
This document summarizes a student's senior capstone project on global warming. The project incorporates three major competencies: science, examining the fundamental science and effects of global warming; cross-cultural, analyzing environmental justice and impacts on impoverished communities; and ethics, considering socio-cultural impacts. The student chose this topic because global warming will affect their children and aims to understand its scientific evidence and effects on vulnerable human and environmental systems.
This document provides an overview of environmental issues related to air quality, water management, and land management. It discusses key topics like air pollution in various countries, rankings of air quality between countries, the Paris Climate Accord, US withdrawal from the accord, water pollution issues in India and China, forest and land management challenges, and Canada's environmental ranking. The document aims to discuss these issues in a balanced way and note actions already taken by some countries to improve air quality and management of natural resources.
A tragedy with a happy ending? The United States before the Paris Climate SummitWorldwatch Institute
Opening presentation by Worldwatch Institute's Alexander Ochs for the "Climate change: Implications for technological development and industrial competitiveness” workshop.
Madrid, Spain. 4th November 2015.
The document discusses how oil has negatively impacted many countries and harmed the environment. While oil provides fuel and energy, it undermines most oil-producing nations by weakening democracy and encouraging corruption. It also pollutes the environment through emissions and oil spills. The example of Nigeria is provided, where oil production in the Niger Delta region has led to widespread pollution and many oil spills dating back decades. This pollution has severely damaged the region's environment and harmed the livelihoods of local communities, yet most see little success in obtaining justice or compensation due to barriers like poverty, lack of legal resources, and corruption.
The document discusses how climate change disproportionately impacts the world's poorest people and communities. It outlines key messages about how climate change is exacerbating hunger, water shortages, and disease. The document calls on readers to contact their members of Congress to advocate for US leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, providing financial assistance for developing countries to adapt to climate impacts, and ensuring corporate climate policies support vulnerable groups.
160416 Should the prevention of long term climate change be put before the de...Sam Norman
The document discusses whether preventing long-term climate change should take priority over the development of LEDCs. It argues that preventing LEDC development in the short-term could help limit global temperature rise to under 2°C by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are significant ethical issues and challenges with implementing this strategy. International cooperation would be required but has often failed due to voluntary components and inadequate funding in climate agreements. Complete prevention of development would also be difficult and prolong living conditions in LEDCs that include high mortality rates and lower life expectancy.
Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change Girish Balachandran
An encapsulation of Losing Earth - The decade we almost stopped climate change - a special report published in New York times by Nathaniel Rich on Aug 1, 2018
- Gordon Brown is launching an unprece ented investigation into the economic and social impacts of climate change and the costs of mitigating it, challenging President Bush's view that addressing climate change would harm economies.
- The investigation, led by Sir Nicholas Stern, will examine the costs of climate change impacts like increased flooding in the UK as well as devastating effects in developing countries. It will also analyze studies showing that mitigating climate change costs less than dealing with unchecked impacts.
- The investigation takes on new urgency after President Bush failed to mention a new climate initiative with Australia, India, China, South Korea and Japan to Tony Blair, seen as a "slap in the face" and attempt to undermine negotiations for
Publication: Climate Diplomacy and Global Democracy, January 2011Africa Cheetah Run
1) The document discusses climate diplomacy and negotiations between countries under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It focuses on the relationship between the US and China and the roles of other major players like the EU, developing nations, and Africa.
2) The US-China relationship is complex, with them sometimes cooperating but also representing divergent historical responsibilities for emissions versus current emissions. Finding common ground between their positions is a challenge for negotiators.
3) The EU aims to be a leader but struggles with internal divisions that prevent it from speaking with one voice. If it overcomes this, it could play a bigger facilitator role.
4) Developing nations and Africa are not united either
1) Diplomatic efforts over the past two decades to control carbon dioxide emissions through agreements like the Kyoto Protocol have largely failed, as emissions continue to rise and the world is warming.
2) A new approach is needed that focuses on shorter-lived climate pollutants like soot, which new science shows cause almost half of current global warming. Reducing these pollutants could lead to more tangible near-term impacts and build credibility in the international regime.
3) At the same time, more work is needed on adaptation strategies to help societies cope with the impacts of climate change that can no longer be avoided, such as by creating networks of local experts and officials on the front lines of adaptation.
The document summarizes perspectives on the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen climate change summit and strategies for moving forward. It notes that relatively weak environmental movements were unable to pressure governments at Copenhagen. It also discusses contradictions between unlimited capitalist growth and the Earth's finite resources, as well as criticisms of market-based solutions to climate change that have largely failed to achieve environmental gains. The document advocates for ecosocialist strategies and building mass movements connecting responses to climate change and economic issues.
Can new technology save us in time? 2. Limits to Growth: Food Crash. Paul H. Carr
The MIT-authored book, "Limits to Growth," projects an economic and food-per-capita collapse. Written in 1972, predictions for the population explosion, water shortages, and non-renewable resource depletion have been accurate to date. Can we afford higher food prices?
COVID-19 & CLIMATE
If one waits until it’s serious, it’s too late.
Mother Nature has the whole world in her hands.
Need Science to understand, diagnose, and predict
Global problem: National boundaries do not matter
Need United Nations (World Health Organization) for collective action
COVID-19 is reducing climate change.
Reduction of fossil fuel burning is:
1. Clearing our atmosphere &
2. 17% in CO2 reduction is slowing global warming.
TIMESCALE AFTER DRASTIC ACTION.
COVID-19: Months for results.
CLIMATE CHANGE REDUCTIONS:
NO2: Cleaner Air In Months
CO2: Many Decades to Reduce:
Sea Level Rise
Heat Waves
Forest Fires,
Hurricane Intensity
CONCLUSION:
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 10 years.
“A stitch in time saves nine.”
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for carbon free electricity, 24/7.
MIT Study. A nuclear buildup could completely decarbonize the electric power structure.
COOL CUMMUNITY SOLUTION
• Capitalistic Carbon Fee plus Dividend. www.CitizensClimateLobby.com
• The COVID-19 low price of oil will help. People used to higher oil prices.
Confront COVID-19 and Climate Change NowPaul H. Carr
COVID-19 & CLIMATE: BOTH GLOBAL, TEMPERATURE INCREASE
If we wait for a crisis, it’s too late:
Time after drastic action: COVID, months;
CLIMATE, century.
The COVID “stay in place” reduced greenhouse emissions up to 17%. Reduced population.
Non-US-Deficit Increasing solution: Carbon fee plus dividend for all.
What we can do: more vegetarian diet, less airline travel, more nuclear reactors
The document summarizes two recent lawsuits filed against the US government regarding climate change policy. One lawsuit claims the EPA is failing to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. The other lawsuit argues that two federal agencies should assess climate impacts when funding overseas fossil fuel projects. Both lawsuits aim to force the government to take stronger action to address climate change.
Could we achieve goal 13 of the sdgs within the existing international econom...Md. Zahirul Islam
Sustainable development (SD) is a pattern of resource use, that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present but also for generations to come (sometimes taught as ELF -Environment, Local people, Future)
This document is an email chain discussing a New York Times editorial on the Bush Administration's position on global warming. The editorial criticizes the administration for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol and rejecting limits on carbon emissions. It notes some encouraging state-level actions but says global warming requires a national response. The emails discuss the administration submitting a new climate report to the UN that describes significant environmental impacts from global warming in the US.
This presentation discusses air quality. Too much doom and gloom is spread about air pollution and not enough is said on actions done by countries like Canada and USA for the past 25+ years to improve air quality in their various countries
Jennie Stephens - Myra Kraft Open Classroom - October 26, 2016neupolicyschool
The document discusses the US role in global environmental governance, with a focus on climate change. It summarizes the US's historical leadership on environmental issues but also periods of lagging behind. It then covers international climate negotiations and agreements from the UNFCCC to the Paris Agreement. It also discusses climate science, denial, and policies of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Renewable energy technology advances are outlined but fossil fuels still dominate global energy.
This document discusses environmental degradation and its causes and effects. It provides 15 causes of environmental degradation including growing population, rapid urbanization, industrialization, deforestation, and pollution. Some key effects mentioned are global warming, ozone depletion, toxic elements in air and water, and damage to aquatic and human life. The document also discusses the concepts of pollution, the greenhouse effect, acid rain, ozone depletion, and the Kyoto Protocol for addressing climate change.
Philanthropy for the Climate-Change Challenge with John P. Holdrenpackard343comm
Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), presented to the David and Lucile Packard Foundation's Board of Trustees on the state of climate policies and action in the United States and worldwide. The Packard Foundation is deeply invested in climate change mitigation efforts and welcomed the opportunity to discuss with Dr. Holdren where philanthropic funding may have the most impact.
This document summarizes a student's senior capstone project on global warming. The project incorporates three major competencies: science, examining the fundamental science and effects of global warming; cross-cultural, analyzing environmental justice and impacts on impoverished communities; and ethics, considering socio-cultural impacts. The student chose this topic because global warming will affect their children and aims to understand its scientific evidence and effects on vulnerable human and environmental systems.
This document provides an overview of environmental issues related to air quality, water management, and land management. It discusses key topics like air pollution in various countries, rankings of air quality between countries, the Paris Climate Accord, US withdrawal from the accord, water pollution issues in India and China, forest and land management challenges, and Canada's environmental ranking. The document aims to discuss these issues in a balanced way and note actions already taken by some countries to improve air quality and management of natural resources.
A tragedy with a happy ending? The United States before the Paris Climate SummitWorldwatch Institute
Opening presentation by Worldwatch Institute's Alexander Ochs for the "Climate change: Implications for technological development and industrial competitiveness” workshop.
Madrid, Spain. 4th November 2015.
Alexander Ochs. Director of Climate and Energy Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C.
Autumn Seminar 2015 - Climate change: Implications for technological developments and industrial competitiveness.
Jornada organizada por FUNSEAM y la Cátedra de Energía de Orkestra-Instituto Vasco de Competitividad con la colaboración de Fundación Repsol.
4 de Noviembre de 2015. CAMPUS REPSOL. Madrid, España
Alexander Ochs Director of Climate and Energy Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C.
Jornada "Climate Change Implications for technological developments and industrial competitiveness" . Organizada por Funseam y la Catedra Orkestra de Energía, con la colaboración de la Fundación Repsol. Madrid 04/11/2015
Letter by Parliamentarians US Congress and EU on COP28 PresidencyEnergy for One World
The letter urges UNFCCC leadership and heads of state to take action to limit the influence of fossil fuel companies at UNFCCC meetings and climate negotiations. Specifically, it calls for (1) diplomatic efforts to change the President-designate of COP28 who has ties to fossil fuel interests, and (2) rules to restrict participation of major polluting industries like fossil fuel companies whose goals conflict with the Paris Agreement aims. It notes the large presence of fossil fuel lobbyists has undermined climate action and that bold emissions cuts are needed urgently to address the climate crisis.
This document provides an overview of the global business environment and key concepts related to globalization. It discusses the meaning and driving forces of globalization, dimensions of globalization including stages of globalization. It also introduces theories of international trade such as absolute advantage theory, comparative cost advantage theory, and factor endowment theory. Additionally, it covers the trading environment of international trade, including tariff and non-tariff barriers, trade blocs, and the rise of new economies. The document aims to explain globalization and its impact on the global business environment.
TennisonJ_Interdisciplinary Research Paper_Climate Change 13 Mar 16 (Autosaved)Jonathan Tennison
This paper explores climate change from an interdisciplinary perspective using political science, natural science, and economics. While politicians often deny climate change due to funding from fossil fuel industries, the natural science evidence for human-caused climate change is overwhelming. Economics is driving the transition to renewable energy as major banks invest in green technology. An integrated approach is needed to balance economic and social concerns with mitigating climate change.
The document is an email summarizing a news article about a Senate hearing on climate change policies. At the hearing, four Bush administration advisors defended the President's decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol and pursue voluntary emissions reductions programs instead of mandatory caps. They argued mandatory cuts could cost billions and millions of jobs. Critics at the hearing said the administration's approach will not reduce emissions and is inadequate given warnings about climate change impacts. The administration officials said more study is needed before taking more aggressive action.
Nearly every country agreed at the UN Climate Change Conference to take action to reduce carbon emissions and limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius. However, this will mean that only 25% of known fossil fuel reserves can be burned, leaving the remaining 75% as "stranded assets" that will lose most of their value and cause $16 trillion to evaporate from energy company books. As governments implement policies to curb emissions, investments in fossil fuel companies face new risks that could affect retirement funds and portfolios. Financial institutions are warning clients about this emerging stranded asset risk.
This document is an email forwarding a news article summarizing a Senate hearing where Bush administration officials defended the President's climate change policies. The officials argued that severe near-term measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not warranted given scientific uncertainties. They claimed the Kyoto Protocol would cost the US economy billions and millions of jobs. Critics argued the administration's voluntary approach is insufficient and will allow more power plant pollution than alternative proposals. The officials maintained the administration is still studying issues and has not ruled out more aggressive action if justified by greater scientific understanding in the future.
LEC 406_Sarah Phillipson_FULL_Essay_ Growth and Climate Change_ 18 April 2016...Sarah Phillipson
1) The document discusses the relationship between economic growth and climate change, debating whether continual growth is compatible with addressing climate change.
2) It provides graphs showing the close correlation between growth in energy consumption, carbon emissions, and GDP since the industrial revolution.
3) The post-1950 period saw a dramatic acceleration in economic and earth system trends, potentially linked to the global economic system established at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference emphasizing continual growth.
The Adam Smith Plan to Save Markets and the Climate: The Climate is Too Big t...Nancy Skinner
This is a Proposed Plan B for financing the global climate crisis and the rapid transition to a clean energy economy. The existing funding mechanisms are woefully insufficient to meet the 1.5°C goal or 2°C limit. The goal of having $100 million/yr. by 2020 for the Green Climate Fund is wildly unrealistic, especially given US political developments and the unintended effects of Brexit.
Moreover, the IPCC has underestimated the rate of climate change and relied on far more extensive development of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) than is currently possible or incentivized to meet the 2°C limit. The stark reality is we simply lack financing at the scale needed to decarbonize both developing and developed economies, in the time frames needed.
In short, we need a "Big Bold Idea' that is much larger in size, that facilitates all stakeholders, including developing and developed nations, to decarbonize economies rapidly, and incentivize CCS to unleash rapid innovation.
Finally, the Fund addresses the interests of companies that find themselves with enormous stranded assets - fossil fuels. The plan incentivizes them to lead the development of CCS implementation from existing technologies used by coal, oil & gas plants to the progression of net-negative CCS (including BECCS and newer breakthrough technologies).
The Adam Smith Plan elegantly produces a Global Climate Fund of roughly $6.7 Trillion USD/year. The International Energy Association has projected $1.1 Trillion per year required for investments in the energy sector alone to meet the 2°C goal.
Adam's Smith described an "invisible hand" that could serve all interests even as people pursue their own self-interest. That is quite different than the existing paradigm which requires financial "sacrifice" by nations to help solve the global crisis; effectively a zero-sum game. The Plan utilizes a global funding mechanism to benefit nations, not only to reduce emissions but to deliver an economic shot in the arm to whole new industries and new jobs, while actually reducing risks to global financial institutions and investors from large Institutional investors (Insurers and Pensions), to Portfolio and Fund managers, to ordinary investors.
It's an offshoot of the Tobin Tax, a .05% tax on the estimated $5.30 Trillion/day of currency exchanges (FX), that yields a $6.7 Trillion Annual fund that can save the Climate, grow global growth and stabilize Markets.
A single private bank in London now closes FX of 18 currencies at the same time across all time zones. The bank is owned by 69 Member Banks and as such, we can avoid the perpetual obstacle of political resistance. Imposing a minuscule tax on the trade of the wealthiest on the earth, currency traders, which amounts to rounding errors for them, can finance the entire global transition to clean energy economies, with minimal administration of collection efforts, essentially acting as Adam’s Smith’s “Invisible Hand".
This document discusses global warming and the attitudes of elites in Latin America, specifically Chile, toward addressing climate change. It finds that while Chilean elites acknowledge climate change is real and a serious issue, they are unwilling to implement radical measures to transition to a green economy due to prioritizing economic growth. The document argues elites' rhetoric on climate change will only turn into real action if pressured by factors like increasing climate impacts, international agreements, changes in governance, and public opinion demanding sustainability. Survey data shows Chileans and Latin Americans widely believe humans cause global warming but elites remain reluctant to strongly reduce fossil fuel use.
Il World Energy Focus è il nuovo mensile online della WEC's community, una e-publication gratuita per essere sempre aggiornato sugli sviluppi del settore energetico. Il World Energy Focus contiene news, interviste esclusive e uno spazio dedicato agli eventi promossi dai singoli Comitati Nazionali.
Slides of talk presented at various forums on occasion of the 40th anniversary of the launching of Limits to Growth, the first report to the Club of Rome published in 1972. This book was one of the earliest scholarly works to recognize that the world was fast approaching its sustainable limits. Forty years later, the planet continues to face many of the same economic, social, and environmental challenges as when the book was first published.
The document summarizes a Senate hearing where four of President Bush's advisors defended his decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol and implement voluntary programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions instead. They argued this approach would save billions of dollars compared to the costs of the Kyoto Protocol. However, Democratic senators criticized the plan as inadequate given the warnings about climate change impacts in a recent administration report. The debate centered on whether voluntary programs or mandatory caps on emissions were needed to sufficiently address climate change risks.
1) Three billionaire donors who made fortunes in fossil fuels - David Koch, Paul Singer, and Charles Joyce - have given nearly half a million dollars to the New York Republican Party this year.
2) They have profited from dirty energy and funded climate denial efforts while blocking action on clean energy.
3) Now they are trying to influence Long Island elections by funding Republican politicians in order to ensure policies that continue benefiting fossil fuel industries at the expense of climate change action.
Realism as both hurdle and panacea in addressing climate change Bright Mhango
Several efforts have been employed by states to curb climate change – efforts such as the Kyoto Protocol, but so far, emissions are actually increasing and if climate change is real, it is coming to get the earth.
This paper would like to argue that in the current international regime, in which realism dominates, solving climate change is not easy if not impossible unless realism itself is expanded to include climate change as a security issue.
It is mainly the inhabitants of the global South who suffer from the effects of climate change. They are faced with the destruction of their living space and the violation of their human rights. At the same time, existing human rights standards offer the possibility of establishing points of reference during international climate negotiations to address such questions as adjustment programs designed to confront the effects of climate change, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, technology transfers, and the future of development. As a frame of reference, human rights standards can serve to accurately evaluate policies and to pinpoint their failures, particularly regarding how these policies affect the world’s weakest inhabitants. This publication by the political scientist Theodor Rathgeber uses case examples to illustrate the dangers faced by indigenous peoples in particular, as well as the tools the UN human rights system gives them to support their struggle for just climate policies.
4 resources/new Aims of Argument.pdf
4 resources/Some Convenient Truths.docx
Some Convenient Truths
Runaway global warming looks all but unstoppable. Maybe that’s because we haven’t really tried to stop it
GREGG EASTERBROOKSEP 1 2006, 12:00 PM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/09/some-convenient-truths/305090/?single_page=true
If there is now a scientific consensus that global warming must be taken seriously, there is also a related political consensus: that the issue is Gloom City. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore warns of sea levels rising to engulf New York and San Francisco and implies that only wrenching lifestyle sacrifice can save us. The opposing view is just as glum. Even mild restrictions on greenhouse gases could “cripple our economy,” Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri said in 2003. Other conservatives suggest that greenhouse-gas rules for Americans would be pointless anyway, owing to increased fossil-fuel use in China and India. When commentators hash this issue out, it’s often a contest to see which side can sound more pessimistic.
Here’s a different way of thinking about the greenhouse effect: that action to prevent runaway global warming may prove cheap, practical, effective, and totally consistent with economic growth. Which makes a body wonder: Why is such environmental optimism absent from American political debate?
Greenhouse gases are an air-pollution problem—and all previous air-pollution problems have been reduced faster and more cheaply than predicted, without economic harm. Some of these problems once seemed scary and intractable, just as greenhouse gases seem today. About forty years ago urban smog was increasing so fast that President Lyndon Johnson warned, “Either we stop poisoning our air or we become a nation [in] gas masks groping our way through dying cities.” During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, threatened to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer. As recently as George H. W. Bush’s administration, acid rain was said to threaten a “new silent spring” of dead Appalachian forests.
But in each case, strong regulations were enacted, and what happened? Since 1970, smog-forming air pollution has declined by a third to a half. Emissions of CFCs have been nearly eliminated, and studies suggest that ozone-layer replenishment is beginning. Acid rain, meanwhile, has declined by a third since 1990, while Appalachian forest health has improved sharply.
Most progress against air pollution has been cheaper than expected. Smog controls on automobiles, for example, were predicted to cost thousands of dollars for each vehicle. Today’s new cars emit less than 2 percent as much smog-forming pollution as the cars of 1970, and the cars are still as affordable today as they were then. Acid-rain control has cost about 10 percent of what was predicted in 1990, when Congress enacted new rules. At that time, opponents said the regulations .
1. FACES BEHIND A GLOBAL CRISIS
US CARBON BILLIONAIRES
AND THE
UN CLIMATE DEADLOCK
International Forum on Globalization
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
A Special Report by the
2. FACES BEHIND A GLOBAL CRISIS
US CLIMATE BILLIONAIRES
AND THE
UN CLIMATE DEADLOCK
Prepared for UNFCCC’s COP 18, Doha, Qatar
Nov 26 - Dec 7, 2012
Joakim Hellberg
Victor Menotti
Anjulie Palta
Michael Pineschi
International Forum on Globalization
1009 General Kennedy Avenue, #2
San Francisco, CA 94129
www.ifg.org
3. CONTENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. THE DOHA DEADLOCK 2
II. THE RAPID RISE AND POLARIZING ROLE OF THE KOCHS 4
III. KOCH SPENDING TO STOP SOLUTIONS 6
IV. TEA PARTY POLARIZATION AND U.S. POLICY PARALYSIS 13
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16
4. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
1
Faces Behind a Global Crisis
US Carbon Billionaires and the UN Climate Deadlock
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to explain the role of the world’s two wealthiest men—carbon
billionaires, Charles and David Koch—in paralyzing United States climate policy that underpins the
international impasse at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). Our objective is to inform more global awareness and increase public pressure on the
US actors stopping solutions to today’s climate crisis. This report follows from another IFG report,
Outing the Oligarchy: Billionaires Who Benefit from Today’s Climate Crisis, published in December 2011 as
global climate talks were held in Durban, South Africa.
Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index recently ranked the two brothers’ combined net worth as greater than
the world’s wealthiest man, Carlos Slim. They have outspent all other oil companies—including
Exxon—to kill US climate legislation by campaign contributions, lobbying of legislators, funding
denial science, attacking clean air laws, stopping the shift in subsidies, and other activities aimed at
influencing policy outcomes (see Figure 1). Their aggressive funding for an extreme faction of
conservatives polarized the climate policy debate in the US, making impossible any meaningful
movement towards science-based emissions targets to enable an equitable global agreement.
Figure 1. Charles &David Koch in Numbers
Combined Net Worth $80.2 billion
Koch Industries’ Annual Corporate Revenues $100 billion
Lobbying Expenditures (since 1998) $69 million
Funding of Climate Science Denial (1997-2010) $60 million
Campaign Contributions (since 1998) $12.6 million
Koch-Related Orgs’ Spending for 2012 Elections $400 million
Source: Bloomberg, Forbes, Greenpeace, Center for Responsive Politics, Politico.
While they have come under increasing scrutiny in the US for their influence on the domestic US
debate, little attention has focused on their international impacts from ever-increasing greenhouse
gas emissions that are intensifying today’s droughts, floods, fires, and famine, as well as the epic
damage being done directly to the natural world. The Kochs cashed in by polluting our planet—
economists would call them free-riders—and now they wield their wealth to rig the rules in their
own favor, making them classic rent-seekers. Leading an epic propaganda effort by the broader
fossil fuels industry, global climate cooperation may face no bigger barrier blocking progress today
than these two individuals of undue influence.
IFG’s report draws clear links between the Kochs’ cash and today’s US policy paralysis holding
hostage any global deal. US authorities must steadfastly defend against the Kochs’ attempts to fast-
track permitting of tar sands infrastructure, attacks on EPA’s right to regulate carbon, and efforts to
stop stronger standards for power plants, among other climate policy priorities outlined herein.
Serious steps to reduce the role of private money corrupting US policy outcomes is also a matter of
global urgency to be addressed, ultimately by a constitutional amendment to clarify that money is
not equal to speech and corporations are not people1
, as well as publicly funded elections.
International support for US efforts is also proposed in order to create global pressure for change.
5. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
2
I. THE DOHA DEADLOCK
Figure 2. The World's Wealthiest Individuals
RANK NAME NET WORTH COUNTRY
1 Charles & David Koch $80.2 billion USA
2 Carlos Slim Helú $ 71.8 billion MEX
3 Bill Gates $ 61.1 billion USA
4 Amancio Ortega $ 53.5 billion SPN
5 Warren Buffett $ 46.5 billion USA
6 Ingvar Kamprad $ 41.2 billion SWE
7 Larry Ellison $ 35.8 billion USA
8 Christy Walton $ 28.4 billion USA
9 Jim Walton $ 27.0 billion USA
10 Li Ka-Shing $ 26.5 billion HKG
Source: Adopted from Bloomberg Billionaires Index (11/26/12)
Of all the powerful actors causing the international impasse in current global climate talks, there may
be no bigger barrier blocking progress today than US carbon billionaires Charles and David Koch.
Their combined net worth ($80.2billion) was recently ranked by Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index (See
Figure 2) as more than that of the world’s wealthiest man, Carlos Slim ($71.8billion).
Acting as a single financial and political entity, the two oil barons from Wichita are today’s top
spenders on efforts to stop climate policy solutions in the planet’s most polluting nation, and hold
hostage any progress in Washington that underpins the deadlock at COP 18 in Doha. Advancing
constructive UN climate negotiations requires urgent and substantial changes in domestic US
dynamics to reduce the role of the Kochs specifically—and private money generally—corrupting
policy outcomes.
The International Forum on Globalization (IFG) 2011 report, Outing the Oligarchy: Billionaires Who
Benefit from Today’s Climate Crisis, identified fifty of the world’s wealthiest individuals who hold
overwhelming influence over today’s global climate crises.2
Even though the current US policy paralysis has left the UN in the lurch, there is little international
awareness about the ultra-wealthy individuals who increasingly exert extraordinary political powers
to block progress on climate policy in Washington. There is also an absence of understanding
among Americans of the global impacts felt from the Kochs’ corrupting domestic US policy
processes, particularly the devastating droughts, floods, fires, higher food prices, displacement of
vulnerable populations, destroyed property, and deteriorating ecological conditions resulting from
ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
To inform global climate policy discussion about the individuals who are blocking US climate policy
action at the scale and speed that science says is necessary, we hope this report helps to develop
democratic responses to the “dark and dirty money” that pollutes US policy outcomes.
6. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
3
The Growing Gap between Evidence and Action
At UNFCCC’s COP 17 in Durban, South Africa, the U.S. was called out as the spoiler of progress in
the negotiations by a number of large environmental groups, activists and elected officials.3
Washington’s attitude is seen by many as ‘incomprehensible,’ and its concerns more in line with the
interests of elites rather than that of its people.4
Global climate talks re-convened in May 2012 in Bonn,
and again in August in Bangkok, against a backdrop of
rapidly rising global emissions and a higher incidence of
extreme weather events. As the US suffered historic heat,
deepening drought, epic floods, and new “Superstorms,”
such as Sandy, Koch-funded climate skeptics declared in
July 2012 that human-caused carbon emissions are indeed
warming the Earth5
. Yet action to curb climate disruptions
is not corresponding to changes in the scientific
consensus, with commitments to reduce emissions from
major industrialized countries are all but absent, setting the
world on track towards a 4 to 5 degree Celsius warming
within a century.6
After securing a second term in the White House in the
aftermath Superstorm Sandy, President Obama stated that
he will make climate change a personal mission of his
second term, and attempt at “...getting Republicans and
Democrats to agree on a course of action.”7
Reasonable Republicans know that climate action must
happen yet they face enormous pressure from the Koch-funded faction of their party. Post-election
reactions by ascendant GOP governors make clear there are no plans to moderate the politics of the
party. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker insisted that they
believe there was nothing wrong with the beliefs and positions of the party, but rather that the party
messaging needs some modernization and improved articulation to win over more voters.8
Two Billionaires Block a Global Breakthrough
With an extremely polarized Congress and too few significant signs of the parties’ moving towards
each other, progress on climate change will be a big challenge for US President Obama.
Nevertheless, Obama managed to pass deeply divisive health care reform and has shown leadership
on environmental issues by empowering the EPA to roll out greenhouse gas regulation and setting
new important fuel efficiency standards.
While talks about a carbon tax have resurfaced, and the American Enterprise Institute, an influential
pro-business conservative think-tank has been exploring proposals, industry experts express doubt
that conditions are ripe.9
At an international level, even the World Bank and the International
Energy Agency have raised concerns about global warming stating that: “The projected 4 °C
warming simply must not be allowed to occur—the heat must be turned down,”10
and that “No
Superstorm Sandy Floods the US East Coast
7. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
4
more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is
to achieve the 2 °C goal”...11
At the same time, there has been a boom in U.S. oil production and investment worldwide, which
may expand world oil production capacity significantly by 2020. The additional capacity would come
not only from conventional, but also from more polluting unconventional sources such as Canadian
tar sands and U.S. shale oils making up 28.3% of projected growth.12
The Kochs have considerable
investments in both of these growing sectors of the energy industry. Contrasting this growing supply
scenario with the International Energy Agency’s 2 degree Celsius energy demand forecast, Oil
Change International suggests that 79% of planned capacity is above safe demand levels.13
Despite Obama’s commitment to address climate change and calls by influential international
organizations to address global warming, they face highly organized and very well-funded opponents
in the fossil fuel industry—epitomized by the Kochs—contributing to worsening political
polarization and a poor record of U.S. participation in multilateral environmental agreements
(MEAs). Any short-to-medium term progress will be moderate at best unless the balance of forces
currently in place shifts significantly.
Only then can the Obama administration keep its promise to “protect a planet in peril” by
rethinking his UNFCCC team’s irresponsible initiative to torpedo the multilateral mitigation regime,
proposing instead to replace it with a voluntary “pledge and review” paradigm that sets the planet on
course for a 4-5 °C increase in average global temperature.
II. THE RAPID RISE AND POLARIZING ROLE OF THE KOCHS
The U.S. is an increasingly unequal society with extreme income disparities between the rich and
poor. Government policy has played a large part in creating a winner-take-all economy14
and has
inspired academics to explore defining the U.S. political system as oligarchic.15
Oligarchic systems of government is characterized by large political and material inequalities with a
few actors commanding vast amounts of wealth that can be transformed into political influence
through funding think-tanks, foundations, consultancies, law firms, lobbying organizations, and to
some extent politicians - all with a purpose of advancing the interest of the already affluent by
adding to their material wealth.16
The pattern of behavior described above is clearly discernible from IFG’s comprehensive
“mapping” of the money, structure, and unprecedented scale of the Kochs’ influence network, see
IFG’s “The Kochtopus” online at www.KochCash.org.
The most egregious example of extreme wealth exerting such undue influence is the Kochs as we
elaborate in this report. As Figure 3 shows, the share of income to the top 1%, and the smaller
fraction of 0.01%, has more than doubled since 1980, indicating not just a shift in income to the top,
but a massive disproportional shift towards the ultra-rich, who are currently collecting 25% of the
top 1% income share. Today, income inequality is back to the pre-depression levels of the 1920’s.
8. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
5
Source: The World Top Incomes Database, 2012.
In addition to their vast personal wealth based on fossil fuels, the annual revenue of Koch Industries
was estimated to reach $100 billion in 2011.17
Their wealth quintupled is six years (2005-2011)
following the creation of unregulated oil derivatives markets that made room for speculation and
insider trading.
Given the close correlation between the brothers’ net worth, rising oil prices, and a surge in
speculative activities there are reasons to believe that the three are inextricably linked.18
It is no
coincidence that the world’s wealthiest men also have its largest carbon footprint, and have initiated
an ideological campaign to advance the myth that an economy of endless material expansion is
possible on planet that has already gone beyond any respect for ecological limits.
Nevertheless the Kochs appear unable or unwilling to “innovate” their way out of inevitable carbon
limits that threaten the very basis of their current claims to wealth, as is the fossil fuels infrastructure
their family helped to create. That’s why the brothers opt to spend millions of dollars to keep rules
on carbon emissions to a minimum by manipulating US policymaking processes via a very
sophisticated influence network that has put the Kochs “at the center” of conservative power in
2010, according to the Washington Post.19
Economists call this “rent seeking”.
2012 election results are still being assessed as far as how the party will adjust their approach, if at all.
True, they candidates gained few new seats in Congress, but one of their leading ideologues, Paul
Ryan of Wisconsin, has now risen to party leader and is a top contender for presidential candidate in
2016. While some say the Kochs got nothing for all their money spent, one must also consider that
these enormous amounts of money is what it cost them to maintain the status quo and, and one
must ask how well they would have done if the role of private money had been radically reduced.
Figure 3. Income Inequality in America
%ofNationalIncome
Top 1% income share, including capital gains
Top 0.01% income share, including capital gains
9. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
6
Source: Forbes, Bloomberg, US EIA.
III. KOCH SPENDING TO STOP SOLUTIONS
Contributing to Congressional Campaigns
Since 1998, Koch Industries has spent $12.6 million on campaign contributions to both houses of
Congress including contributions to non-incumbents.20
The Koch PAC spent over $1.6 million in
the 2012 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Source: Center for Responsive Politics (11/20/2012)
Figure 4. Kochs' Net Worth vs. Oil Price (1987-2012)
0
10,000,000,000
20,000,000,000
30,000,000,000
40,000,000,000
50,000,000,000
60,000,000,000
70,000,000,000
80,000,000,000
90,000,000,000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Avg Price of Oil Per Barrel
KochNetWorth(USD$)
Figure 5. Oil & Gas Industry PAC Contributions to Political Candidates
2012
Kochs’NetWorth(USD$)
10. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
7
Koch Industries alone has given over $6 million in ‘dirty energy money’ to representatives in
Congress since 199921
, including contributions to members of the key Senate committees listed in
Figure 6a and 6b as well as to members of key House committees.22
Of the top 25 recipients of
contributions from Koch Industries, seven can be found on these committees including prominent
representatives such as Joe Barton, Mike
Pompeo, and James Inhofe - all voting for
fossil-fuel interests at least 93% of the
time.23
Inhofe is a famous denier of global
warming and has even written a book
arguing that global warming is a hoax.24
Pompeo (R-KA), who has taken over
$100,000 from the Kochs in this current
(2010-2012) Congress alone,25
is backing
fossil fuel subsidies and resisting financial
support for wind energy.26
Pompeo has
even tried to eliminate six EPA internship
slots each accompanied by a $6000
stipend.27
Representative Gerry Connolly (D-VA) suggested renaming a House bill that would block
EPA climate regulations to the ‘Koch Brothers Appreciation Act’ in 2011.28
The connections between contributions to elected officials were apparent in the vote for the latest
House bill, ‘the Strategic Energy Production Act’, which aimed to limit public influence and
environmental review of agency action on leasing public lands for fossil-fuel production. Those
voting in favor of the bill have taken almost five times more from fossil-fuel interests over the last
thirteen years than those voting against the bill had.29
A closer look at the correlation between
politicians’ voting patterns and the money they receive from the fossil-fuel industry (coal, oil and
gas) with data from Oil Change International reveals similar voting patterns on bills where the public
interest has been pitted against fossil-fuel interests.30
The Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Environment and Public Works
Committee (currently under Democratic majority control) have jurisdiction over EPA issues31
as
well as other energy policy, climate change, oil, gas and coal production and distribution32
, air
pollution, and environmental policy.33
Figure 6 shows the average contribution per Congress, the percentage of votes in favor of fossil-fuel
interests on selected bills, and party affiliation of representatives on two key Senate committees with
jurisdiction over energy and environmental areas. The correlation between party affiliation and votes
in favor of fossil-fuel interests demonstrates a high degree of polarization. It is also observable that
those not voting for fossil-fuel interest as frequently also receive little in contributions from the
fossil-fuel industry. The data reveals a clear pattern: Party affiliation and money from fossil-fuel
interests strongly correlates with voting patterns. What stands out is the relatively expensive
Democratic votes of Joe Manchin, Mary Landrieu, and Max Baucus indicating the higher cost of
going against the party line.
11. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
8
Figure 6a. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Representative ($) Average contribution/congress (%) Votes in favor of fossil-fuel interests
John Barrasso (R-WY) 246,366 90
James M. Inhofe (R-OK) 189,764 94
David Vitter (R-LA) 172,732 88
Max Baucus (D-MT) 95,318 40
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) 75,800 94
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 69,252 94
Mike Johanns (R-NE) 58,750 89
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) 54,517 13
Mike Crapo (R-ID) 45,206 94
John Boozman (R-AR) 35,246 88
Mark Udall (D-CO) 35,198 11
Thomas R. Carper (D-DE) 32,766 13
Benjamin L. Cardin (D-DE) 31,207 13
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) 16,139 8
Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) 14,058 13
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 12,336 6
Jeff Merkley (D-OR) 4,650 11
Bernard Sanders (D-VT) 1,557 7
Figure 6b. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Representative ($) Average contribution/congress (%) Votes in favor of fossil-fuel interests
Joe Manchin (D-WV) 448,924 50
John Hoeven (R-ND) 402,695 88
John Barrasso (R-WY) 246,366 90
Daniel Coats (R-IN) 229,018 88
Rand Paul (R-KY) 225,203 88
Bob Corker (R-TN) 211,097 83
Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA) 170,153 63
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) 164,122 81
Rob Portman (R-OH) 126,815 89
Dean Heller (R-NV) 100,393 91
Mike Lee (R-UT) 89,289 63
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) 87,060 19
James E. Risch (R-ID) 74,190 89
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) 38,952 25
Tim Johnson (D-SD) 36,307 14
Mark Udall (D-CO) 35,198 11
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) 27,713 11
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) 21,482 19
Christopher A. Coons (D-DE) 19,262 13
Al Franken (D-MN) 19,150 11
Ron Wyden (D-OR) 18,798 6
Bernard Sanders (D-VT) 1,557 7
Source: Calculated with data from: Oil Change International (07/23/2012)
12. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
9
On top of the spending to influence Congress, the Kochs are organizing secretive meetings with
influential conservatives including Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas.34
For the 2012 elections, Koch related organizations planned to spend about $400 million toward a
staggering $1 billion blitz in outside spending from conservative groups.35
Leading Lobbyist of Legislators
Data from the Center for Responsive Politics show that over the ten-year period of 1998-2008,
fossil fuel interests spent about half the amount of the financial industry36
on lobbying Congress,
and have been given substantial returns on their investment. The energy and natural resources
sector’s spending on lobbying jumped one third to almost $300 million between 2007 and 2008 and
remained at a significant $293 million in 2011, down from $337 million in 2010.37
Of the total energy
and natural resources sector’s $2.3 billion in lobbying expenditures, the oil & gas industry together
with electric utilities spent $1.8 billion (78%) of the total over the same time period (1998-2008) in
which the financial industry spent $5 billion.38
During the Congressional debate on global warming
in 2009, environmental groups spent a record $22.4 million. Although this was an impressive
number, they were outspent by a single oil company - ExxonMobil - and dwarfed by the combined
oil and gas industry’s $175 million lobbying offensive.39
The Koch PAC, despite the estimated revenue of Koch Industries being only a third of the largest
oil company ExxonMobil, outspent Valero, ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron between
2006 and 2010.40
Spending some $69 million on lobbying efforts,41
Koch funded lobbyists worked
against EPA regulation of greenhouse gases and EPA efforts that sought to reduce energy market
speculation. Koch lobbyists also pushed for keeping subsidies and tax breaks for the oil industry,42
including promotion of the ‘Energy Tax Prevention Act’ aimed at stripping the EPA of the right to
regulate greenhouse gases.43
Source: Center for Responsive Politics
Figure 7. Oil & Gas Industry: Lobbying Expenditures
USD$
13. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
10
Attacking the Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA)...“is arguably the most successful piece of environmental legislation ever
drafted”44
and it has been estimated that the first 20 years of the CAA produced $21.7 trillion in
benefits over costs.45
Despite its record of success, there has been a surge of litigation in the courts
since 2006, as well as legislative attacks to gut clean air laws led by Koch-funded Congressmen.
This wave is lead by lawsuits from environmental organizations, but industry organizations and
companies are a not far behind. Cases aiming to lessen regulation or liability - so called ‘anti’ cases -
have been increasing (See figure 8) since climate change became an issue in the courts and is
expected to rise further once more permits and regulations are being issued.46
This prediction is
confirmed by looking at industry lawsuits challenging federal action during 2011 and 2012. Lawsuits
spiked in 2011 at 19 cases and to date in 2012 9 cases have been filed.47
Source: Adopted from Figure 3, Markell & Ruhl, 2011 and Gerrard and Howe, 2012.48
While EPA regulations under the Obama Administration has been challenged in courts, the
Administration’s climate policies were backed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in its June 2012
ruling in Coalition for Responsible Regulations v. EPA, upholding all of the EPA’s new regulation on
greenhouse gases and the legal authority of the Agency over the field.49
Apart from legal challenges to climate change regulation, there have been numerous attempts to
prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gases through legislative action since the Supreme Court
2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA and the subsequent “endangerment” finding and rule-making
under the Obama Administration.
Anti-Climate Litigation on The Rise
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Anti-mitigation Claims
Trend - Anti-mitigation Claims
Figure 8. Anti-Climate Litigation Claims 2006-2012
NumberofClaims
14. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
11
In the current (2010-2012) Congress alone, 247 anti-environment votes were recorded in the House
of Representatives amounting to a remarkable 19% of total votes. These measures were primarily
aimed at the EPA, but also at the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy. A
convincing 94% of the majority Republicans took the anti-environment position and 87% of the
minority Democrats took the pro-position (See Figure 9). Thirty-seven of the votes were directly
aimed at blocking action on climate change.50
The primary benefactor was the oil and gas industry,
receiving benefits from more than 44% of total anti-environment votes.51
To mention a few, the House of Representatives passed the ‘Energy Tax Prevention Act’ in April of
2011, to nullify the EPA’s endangerment finding, with unanimous support from the House
Republican majority party52
on the heels of the 2010 Tea Party takeover. In an earlier vote the same
year, near unanimous support was given to pass an EPA budget that prohibited spending on
enforcement or promulgation of any climate change related regulations.53
The House has even
passed bills to defund the IPCC and the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern.54
Perceptions among the American public concerning the threat to themselves, their families, and
community from global warming have risen significantly since 2008 and a majority is convinced that
global warming is human caused.55
The public support for Environmental Protection Agency
regulation of carbon dioxide is very strong with 77% of voters supporting stricter Clean Air Act
limits. 64% believes that Congress should not stop the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and
69% prefer EPA
scientists to set air
pollution standards over
Congress. On top of the
high approval for EPA
action, most voters
believe that more jobs
will be created as a result
of updated CAA
standards.56
Source: Minority Staff, 2012.
Source: Leiserowitz et al., 2012. Ayres McHenry and Associates, 2012.
Figure 9. House Polarization on the Environment
Figure 10. Belief in Human-Caused Global Warming and US Public Support for
EPA Carbon Regulation (%)
15. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
12
Financing for Climate Denialists
The Kochs have provided over $60 million to groups denying climate science over the period of
1997-2010.57
Greenpeace keeps close track of the various climate denial efforts that the Kochs are engaged in,
and regularly reports on their activities. 58
Among the strongest skeptics has been Dr. Robert Muller from the University of California
Professor of Physics and the Founder and Scientific Director of the Berkeley Earth Surface
Temperature. Muller completed a Koch-funded study during the drought of summer 2012 that
unequivocally concluded that human-caused carbon emissions are indeed warming the planet. 59
Similar to the ways in which Big Tobacco executives cast doubt for decades on studies of the health
impacts of cigarettes only to be caught manipulating scientific research, the Kochs may be entering a
new landscape of legal responsibilities now that their own researchers are finding and informing
them that the impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions are indeed impacting our planet.
Stopping the Shift in Subsidies
Different reports vary regarding their assessments of the size of total subsidies, but it is clear that
returns on lobbying expenditures are substantial.60
According to an OECD report, the US fossil
fuels industry receives a variety of producer and consumer subsidies that together with research and
development amounted to $12.5 billion in 2009 and $15 billion in 2010.61
A study from the
Environmental Law Institute found that between 2002 and 2008, subsidies to fossil fuels totaled an
impressive $72 billion, with ‘foregone revenues’ (foreign tax credits and credit for production of
nonconventional fuels) as the largest tax break. Renewables only received $29 billion, more than half
of which went to corn ethanol,62
a fuel with negative net climate effects.63
Despite recent calls from the
President to end an annual $4 billion
in tax subsidies for oil and gas
companies, whose profits reached
$80 billion in 2011, a Senate bill to
cut only $2.5 billion from them
failed in late March by a marginal
vote.64
To put this in context, the big
five oil companies, BP, Conoco
Philips, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and
Royal Dutch Shell, made a
combined $1 trillion in profits over
the last decade.65
Although fossil-fuels have
dominated subsidies, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has provided has provided a
significant boost to renewables with climate-energy tax incentives estimated at $21 Billion (citation
needed). However, the greatest subsidy of all for the oil industry came through the war on terror and
the invasion of Iraq, which sent prices through the roof and produced unprecedented relative gains
for big oil.66
Source: Environmental Law Institute, 2009.
Figure 11. Fossil Fuel Subsidies vs. Renewables 2002-2008
16. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
13
Given the major role the U.S. plays in global climate change due to its high historical emissions, no
significant international effort to curb warming could be effective without American participation.67
The U.S. has the financial and technological capability to mitigate climate change and if it was to lead
it is likely that other countries would follow.68
The U.S. is carrying the largest historical burden of all
countries and is soon set to become the world’s top oil producer, according to recent projections by
the International Energy Agency69
. Emissions projections show that the U.S. along with the EU will
remain on a stable level over the coming twenty years while large high growth economies will more
than double their emissions. This trend should inspire the U.S. to follow the most ambitious route
possible.
IV. TEA PARTY POLARIZATION AND U.S. POLICY PARALYSIS
Source: World Resources Institute, Energy Information Agency, World Bank
US Participation in Multilateral Environmental Agreements
For a long time the U.S. was a leader in domestic environmental legislation as well as in international
environmental politics, but in the new millennium it has lost much of its momentum and fallen
behind other nations and the EU and even China.70
Figure 13 shows the trend of U.S. participation
in major environmental treaties compared to EU participation rate (left scale) and contrasts this
trend with Senate polarization (right scale).
In the early 70’s, pro-environmental forces were strong in the U.S and a range of ambitious
environmental policies were passed. Since the 1990s though, the strength of U.S. environmentalists
have waned and their counterparts in Western Europe have gained relative influence. This shift is,
according to Kelemen and Vogel, part of the explanation of why ratification of international
agreements has failed.71
Since the landmark environmental laws of the 1970’s, U.S. environmental ambitions have come and
gone with the shift of presidents. While the Reagan and GW Bush Administrations were the greatest
opponents of environmental legislation and internationally binding treaties, the Clinton
Administration’s ambition to have the Kyoto Protocol ratified in the Senate was stymied by the
Share of CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption (2010)
Others
35%
United States
18%
Europé
14%
China
26%
India
5%
South
Africa
Brazil
1%
Figure 12.
17. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
14
Byrd-Hagel Resolution72
, the non-binding resolution instructing the Senate not to approve an
international climate treaty that did not include developing countries or [allegedly] harmed the US
economy. The US still insists today that it will not join Kyoto.
Source: Kelmen & Vogel 2010, UNTS database, Poole & Rosenthal
Obama has tried to build up the regulatory apparatus of the state by appointing leaders loyal to the
notion of scientific administration, by proposing to increase agencies’ funding (including the EPA),
and by shifting the focus of cost-benefit analysis away from the conservative cost-heavy bias.73
Obama’s initial action was seen in appointments of prominent names to lead the work on the
environment, energy, and climate change, and initial policy changes, but despite the Democratic
majority in both houses from 2008 to 2010, Congress failed to move legislation.74
The Senate’s Shift Toward Selective Isolationism
Political polarization in both houses was low in the post-WWII period indicating a period of
bipartisanship that started to deteriorate in the mid-to-late 70’s. Today, political polarization is at an
all time high since 187975
indicating a never before seen level of political gridlock. One reason for
the Senate’s shift toward “selective isolationism” is the increasing ease for super-wealthy individuals
to make undisclosed and unlimited donations to extremist candidates running for elected office. The
Kochs organized $400 million in the 2012 elections through various groups, and the candidates they
supported were in alignment with their “shrink government” message.
Environmental protection and climate change are deeply polarizing issues as indicated by voting
records. Given that a two-third supermajority is required in the Senate for treaty approval, and also
as a House majority is required for any budgetary allowances supporting implementation measures,
polarization is a real issue for U.S. participation in a future climate agreement. The Kochs’ founding
Figure 13. Political Polarization & US Participation in Major Environmental Treaties
18. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
15
and funding of the Tea Party, the extreme faction of the conservative Republican Party that
demands “small government,” has further polarized the climate policy debate.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
For the international climate negotiations to move forward, U.S. domestic political dynamics need to
change. The disparate influence of large corporations and wealthy individuals in contrast to the sway
of the bottom 90% of Americans needs to be addressed for meaningful change in environmental
policy to materialize. While the U.S. climate community is to some degree engaged in activities
aimed at linking the issue of climate change with extreme concentrations of wealth and legal
corruption, we presume that these efforts are not nearly enough to counter the growing power of
interests exacerbating global warming and promoting “business-as-usual.”
In the U.S., money is power, especially after the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in the case called
Citizens United v. FEC, which resulted in allowing more money to be used by those opposing climate
action and advancing clean energy policies. This is an enormous problem for the climate
community. IFG informally surveyed US climate campaigners to map out the current and future
activities of the community. The results showed that organizations are predominantly engaged in
efforts to delegitimize the current corrupt arrangements but none were directly dealing with
proposals to reduce the role of private money corrupting policy outcomes.
Too few organizations with large memberships are currently considering directly addressing the issue
of “money in politics” and many more need to have the issue introduced formally before they can
take action.
Two developments in US domestic dynamics are emerging: 1) The Kochs and other wealthy
individuals of undue influence—as well as the broader fossil fuels industry—become politically
isolated and incremental efforts at emissions reductions advance; and/or 2) climate campaigners
collaborate across social sectors to reduce the overall role of private money plays in driving policy
outcomes. IFG intends to be involved in both of these ongoing efforts, using the former to
leverage the latter, with initial emphasis on the role of the Kochs—and their supporters in elected
office—in stopping stronger standards on power plants, rolling back EPA’s right to regulate carbon,
fastracking tarsands infrastructure, stalling the shift in fossil fuels subsidies to efficiency and
renewables, and financing climate denialists.
A the international level, climate advocates can assist US efforts toward more democratic climate
policy making:
Government can investigate the Kochs’ activities outside the US, where they operate;
NGOs can urge their US counterparts to prioritize efforts to reduce the role of private money
polluting politics;
Businesses can suggest to any Koch-associated businesses in your country to contact their
headquarters in Wichita, Kansas, to reconsider their stance on cutting greenhouse gases and
interfering with democratic processes;
Anyone can sign-up at www.KochCash.org to get involved in efforts to put more pressure on
the Kochs.
19. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
16
ENDNOTES
1
For more information on the movement for a constitutional amendment see
<https://movetoamend.org/>
2
Menotti, Victor. “Individuals of Undue Influence in Outing the Oligarchy: Billionaires Who Benefit From
Today’s Climate Crises”. International Forum on Globalization, Dec. 2011. Special Report. San
Francisco, CA.
3
Goldenberg, S. “Barack Obama urged to change US stance at UN climate summit: Environmental
groups and officials warn US will derail progress at Durban by blocking moves toward
climate change fund”. The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 2011. 30 Nov. Web.
2012. 30 Aug. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/30/barack-obama-us-
stance-climate-summit>
4
Solon, Pablo., Bello, Walden. “Why are Climate Negotiations Locked in a Stalemate?” Bangkok Post.
Bangkok Post, 4 September. 2012. Web. 5 September. 2012.
<http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/310683/why-are-climate-negotiations-
locked-in-a-stalemate>
5
Richard Muller. “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Sceptic.”New York Times. New York
Times, 28 Jul. 2012. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-
skeptic.html?pagewanted=all> See http://berkeleyearth.org/
6
Khor, Martin. “Climate talks and climate dilemmas resume in Bonn”. Bonn News Update. Third
World Network, 14 May. 2012. Web. 14 July 2012.
<http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/news/Bonn09/TWN_bonn09_up01.pdf>
7
Goldenberg, Suzanne. “Obama vows to take personal charge of climate change in second term:
President acknowledges first term made only limited progress on the contentious issue that
has lit up since hurricane Sandy.“ The Guardian, 14 Nov. 2012. Web. 15 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/14/obama-climate-change-second-
term>
8
Tumulty, Karen and Eggen, Dan. “GOP Governors Back Away from Romney Remarks.” The
Washington Post, November 15, 2012. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-
governors-back-away-from-romney-remarks/2012/11/15/5d4df074-2f3c-11e2-a30e-
5ca76eeec857_print.html>, Halloran, Liz. “Meet The New GOP, Same As The Old GOP?"
National Public Radio, 15 Nov. 2012. Web. 15 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/11/14/165163103/meet-the-new-gop-
same-as-the-old-gop>
9
Borenstein, Seth. “U.S. Carbon Tax Gains Attention As Climate Change Resurfaces.” The
Huffington Post, 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 15 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/us-carbon-tax_n_2124400.html>
10
See p. xviii. World Bank. “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4C Warmer World Must be Avoided.”
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, November 2012.
11
See p.3. International Energy Agency. “World Energy Outlook 2012: Executive Summary.” IEA,
2012. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2012/exsum/English.pdf.>
12
Maugeri, Leonardo. “Oil: The Next Revolution” Discussion Paper 2012-10, Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, June 2012.
20. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
17
13
Stockman, Kretzman, Turnbull. ”Oil’s New Supply Boom is a Bust for the Climate.” Oil Change
International, 25 Oct. 2012. Web. 25 Nov. 2012. <http://priceofoil.org/2012/10/25/oils-
new-supply-boom-is-a-bust-for-the-climate/>
14
Hacker, J.S., Pierson, P. “Winner-Take-All Politics: Public Policy, Political Organization, and the
Precipitous Rise of Top Incomes in the United States”. Politics & Society, 38.2 (2010): 152-204
15
Winters, J.A., Page, B.I. “Oligarchy in the United States?” Perspectives on Politics, 7. (2009): 731-751.
16
ibid pp.731-732.
17
“#2 Koch Industries”. Forbes. Forbes LLC, n.d. Web. 24 Jul. 2012.
<http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/21/private-companies-11_Koch-
Industries_VMZQ.html>
18
IFG. "How to Reduce Gas Prices and Remove Barriers to Clean Energy: Ban Oil Derivatives."
IFG Oligarchy Blog. International Forum on Globalization, 29 Mar. 2012. Web. 30 May 2012.
<http://thesuperrich.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/koch-cash-set-to-soar-from-rising-gas-
prices-oil-speculation/>. Fang, Lee. “How Koch Became An Oil Speculation Powerhouse:
From Inventing Oil Derivatives To Deregulating The Market.” ThinkProgress. Center for
American Progress Action Fund, 6 June. 2011. Web. 12 June. 2012.
<http://thinkprogress.org/report/koch-oil-speculation/?mobile=nc>.
19
Hamburger, Tom., Hennessey, Kathleen., Banerjee, Neela. “Koch brothers now at heart of GOP
power.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 6 February. 2011. Web. 30 November. 2012.
<http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/06/nation/la-na-koch-brothers-20110206>.
20
“Koch Industries: Totals”. OpenSecrets.org. The Center for Responsive Politics, n.d. Web. 20 Nov.
2012. <http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000186&cycle=2012>
21
“Koch Industries”. Dirty Energy Money. Oil Change International, 23 Jul. 2012. Web. 13 Jul. 2012.
<http://dirtyenergymoney.com/>.
22
Key House committees: House Energy and Commerce Committee, House Natural Resources
Committee
23
Dirty Energy Money. Oil Change International. Web. 13 Jul. 2012.
<http://dirtyenergymoney.com/>.
24
Johnson, Brad. “Inhofe: God Says Global Warming is a Hoax”. Climate Progress Blog, Think Progress.
Center for American Progress Action Fund, 9 Mar. 2012. Web. 23 Jul. 2012.
<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/09/441515/inhofe-god-says-global-warming-
is-a-hoax/?mobile=nc>.
25
“Mike Pompeo”. Dirty Energy Money. Oil Change International. Web. 13 Jul. 2012.
<http://dirtyenergymoney.com/>.
26
Leber, Rebecca. “Despite Backing Subsidies for Big Oil, Mike Pompeo (R-Koch) Says Wind
Energy Doesn’t Deserve Financial Support”. Climate Progress, Think Progress. Center for
American Progress Action Fund, 25 Apr. 2012. Web. 24 Jul. 2012.
<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/25/470896/despite-backing-subsidies-for-big-
oil-mike-pompeo-r-koch-says-wind-energy-doesnt-deserve-financial-support/>
27
Stanley, Max. “Koch Brothers Now Attacking EPA Internships”. The Blog. The Huffington Post,
20 Sept. 2011. Web. 24 Jun. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-stanley/koch-
brothers-now-attacki_b_972493.html>
28
Restuccia, Andrew. “House Dem: Change title of EPA bill to ‘Koch Brothers Appreciation Act’”.
E2 Wire, the Hill. Capitol Hill Publishing Corporation, 5 Apr. 2011. Web. 23 Jul 2012.
<http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/153921-house-dem-change-title-of-epa-
blocking-bill-to-koch-brothers-appreciation-act>
21. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
18
29
This bill and similar bills have little chance of passing the Democratically controlled Senate and be
signed into law by the president. Showalter, K. “Dirty Energy Money Buys Yet Another
House Vote: H.R.4480”. The Price of Oil. Oil Change International, 2012, 21 June.
<http://priceofoil.org/2012/06/21/dirty-energy-money-buys-yet-another-house-vote-h-r-
4480/>
30
The complete methodology for determining which bills favor fossil-fuel interests over public
interests is not available from the data source.
31
“Major Congressional Committees With Jurisdiction over EPA Issues: U.S. Senate”.
<http://www.epa.gov/ocir/leglibrary/pdf/112senatejuris.pdf>
32
“Jurisdiction”. U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. U.S. Senate, n.d. Web. 14 Jul.
2012. <http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/jurisdiction>
33
“Committee Jurisdiction”. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. U.S. Senate, n.d.
Web. 14 Jul. 2012.
<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=CommitteeResources.CommitteeJu
risdiction>
34
Stein, Sam. “Justices Scalia And Thomas Attendance At Koch Events Sparks Judicial Ethics
Debate”. Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 20 Oct. 2010. Web. 24 Jul. 2012.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/scalia-thomas-koch-
industries_n_769843.html>
35
Allen, Mike., VaDehei, Jim. “GOP Groups Plan Record $1 Billion Blitz”. Politico. Politico LLC, 30
May. 2012. Web. 24 Jul. 2012. <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76849.html>
36
The financial industry investment paid off extremely well. For a breakdown of the successful
deregulation of the financial industry see: Weissman, R., Donahue, J. “Sold Out: How Wall
Street and Washington Betrayed America“. Essential Information., Consumer Education
Foundation, Mar. 2009. Washington, DC.
37
“Finance, Insurance & Real Estate”. OpenSecrets.org. The Center for Responsive Politics, n.d. Web.
28 Apr. 2012. <http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=F&year=2011
38
ibid.
39
“Energy & Natural Resources”. OpenSecrets.org. The Center for Responsive Politics, n.d. Web. 28
Apr. 2012. <http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=E&year=a>
40
See p. 18. “Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial”. Greenpeace USA. Report. Washington,
DC: Greenpeace USA, 2011. <http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-
center/reports/Koch-Industries-Still-Fueling-Climate-Denial-2011-Update/>.
41
“Organization Profile: Koch Industries”. OpenSecrets.org. The Center for Responsive Politics, n.d.
Web. 28 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000186&cycle=A>
42
See p. 17. “Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial”. Greenpeace USA. Report. Washington,
DC: Greenpeace USA, 2011. <http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-
center/reports/Koch-Industries-Still-Fueling-Climate-Denial-2011-Update/>.
43
“Lobbying Profile> Koch Industries, summary 2012.” OpenSecrets.org. The Center for Responsive
Politics, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?id=D000000186&year=2012>
44
p.465. Plater et al. Environmental Law and Policy: Nature, Law, and Society (4th Edition)”. New
York: Aspen, 2010. Print.
45
U.S. EPA. “The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990”. U.S. EPA, Oct. 1997.
Web. 25 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/copy.html>
22. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
19
46
Markell, David, and J. B. Ruhl. "An Empirical Assessment of Climate Change in the Courts: A
New Jurisprudence or Business as Usual?." FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper 483
(2011).
47
See ‘Statutory Claims/Stop Government Action/Industry Lawsuits/Challenges to Federal Action’
in Gerrard, Michael B and Howe, J. Cullen. “Climate Change Litigation in the US.” Center for
Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School, November 6, 2012 update.
<www.cliamtecasechart.com>
48
Data for years 2006-2010 from Markell and Ruhl, for years 2011-2012 Gerrard and Howe. 2011-
2012 cases are classified as ‘anti-mitigation’ if plaintiffs are solely companies and/or industry
organizations.
49
Martinson E. “Greens, Automakers Hail Greenhouse Gas Ruling”. Politico. Politico LLC, 26 June.
2012. Web. 10 Jul. 2012. <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77837.html>
50
Minority Staff. “The Anti-Environment Record of the U.S. House of Representatives 112th
Congress: Interim Update.” U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 18
June, 2012. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
<http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/image_uploads/
Report_AntiEnv_06.18.12.pdf>.
51
Minority Staff, p. 59.
52
Minority Staff , p. 25.
53
Minority Staff, p. 29. All but three majority party members voted against the measure.
54
Minority Staff, p. 32.
55
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Howe, P. (2012) Climate
change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in September, 2012.
Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate
Change.
56
Ayres McHenry and Associates. “American Voters Strongly Oppose Congressional Action
Against Clean Air Act Standards, Voters Want EPA, Not Congress, To Set Standards.”
National Survey of Likely 2012 Voters. 2011. <http://www.lung.org/healthy-
air/outdoor/resources/clean-air-survey/clean-air-memo.pdf>
57
“Koch Brothers Exposed: Fueling Climate Denial and Privatizing Democracy”. The Witness.
Greenpeace USA, 2 Apr. 2012. Web. 24 Jul. 2012.
<http://greenpeaceblogs.com/2012/04/02/koch-brothers-exposed-fueling-climate-denial-
and-privatizing-
democracy/?__utma=1.526664967.1343131992.1343131992.1343131992.1&__utmb=1.2.10.
1343131992&__utmc=1&__utmx=-
&__utmz=1.1343131992.1.1.utmcsr=greenpeaceblogs.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=ref
erral|utmcct=/2012/04/02/koch-brothers-exposed-fueling-climate-denial-and-privatizing-
democracy/&__utmv=-&__utmk=132004111>
58 See http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-
industries/
59 http://berkeleyearth.org/
60
Reports vary in their accounting practices, leading them to somewhat different aggregate numbers.
61
See tables 25.1-25.3. OECD. “United States: Inventory of Estimated Budgetary Support and Tax
Expenditures for Fossil Fuels”. OECD, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/22/48786795.pdf>
62
Adeyeye et al. “Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008”.
Environmental Law Institute, Sept. 2009. Washington, DC.
23. Policy Brief International Forum on Globalization
20
63
See p. 15 Jack Santa Barbara. “The False Promise of Biofules.” International Forum on Globalizaiton
and the the Institute for Policy Studies. Special Report, Sept. 2007.
<http://www.ifg.org/pdf/biofuels.pdf>
64
Cooper, H., Steinhauer, J. “Obama Repeats Call to End Oil Subsidies”. New York Times. New
York Times Company, 29 Mar. 2012. Web. 25 Apr. 2012
<http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/obama-repeats-his-call-to-end-oil-
subsidies/?ref=opinion>., “Big Oil’s Bogus Campaign”. New York Times. New York Times
Company, 20 Mar. 2012. Web. 25 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/opinion/big-oils-bogus-campaign.html>
65
Weiss, D.J., Weidman, J., Leber, R. “Big Oil’s Banner Year: Higher Prices, Record Profits, Less
Oil”. Think Progress. Center for American Progress Action Fund, 8 Feb. 2012. Web. 20 Apr.
2012. <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/08/421061/big-oil-higher-prices-record-
profits-less-oil/#comment-367470>
66
For an enlightening analysis see: Bishler, Shimshon, and Nitzan, Jonathan. “Dominant Capital and
the New Wars.” Journal of World Systems Research X, no.2 (2004): 255
67
p.495. Rabe, Barry G. "Contested Federalism and American Climate Policy." Publius 41.3 (2011):
494-521.
68
p.966. Rabe, Barry G. "Contested Federalism and American Climate Policy." Publius 41.3 (2011):
494-521.
69 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/12/us-iea-oil-report-idUSBRE8AB0IQ20121112
70
Harris, P G. "Beyond Bush: Environmental politics and prospects for US climate policy." Energy
policy 37:3 (2009): 966.
71
Kelemen, R. Daniel, and David Vogel. "Trading places: The role of the United States and the
European Union in international environmental politics."Comparative Political Studies 43,
no. 4 (2010): 427-456.
72
Harris, P G. "Beyond Bush: Environmental politics and prospects for US climate policy." Energy
policy 37:3 (2009): 966.
73
Judis, John B. “The Quiet Revolution: Obama Has Reinvented the State in More Ways Than You
Can Imagine”. The New Republic. 241: 2. (2010): 15-17.
74
Bomberg, Elizabeth., Super, Betsy. “The 2008 US Presidential Election: Obama and the
Environment”. Environmental Politics 18:3 (2009): 424-430.
75
See Howard Rosenthal and Keith Poole’s research and data available at:
<http://pooleandrosenthal.com>