Global Warming Sunday?
Sep. 24th, 2006 05:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brdgt
British Science Group Says Exxon Misrepresents Climate Issues
By HEATHER TIMMONS, The New York Times, September 21, 2006
LONDON, Sept. 20 — A British scientific group, the Royal Society, contends that Exxon Mobil is spreading “inaccurate and misleading” information about climate change and is financing groups that misinform the public on the issue.
The Royal Society, a 1,400-member organization that dates back to the 1600’s and has counted Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, asked Exxon Mobil in a letter this month to stop financing these groups and to change its public reports to reflect more accurately the opinions of scientists on the issue.
There is a “false sense somehow that there is a two-sided debate going on in the scientific community” about the origins of climate change, said Bob Ward, the senior manager for policy communication at the Royal Society.
The reality is that “thousands and thousands” of scientists around the world agree that climate change is linked to greenhouse gases, he said, with “one or two professional contrarians” who disagree.
Dozens of lobbying groups, some of them receiving financing from Exxon Mobil, are relying on these contrarians as experts, Mr. Ward said. Meanwhile, he said, Exxon Mobil writes in documents it distributes to the public that it is difficult to determine the extent to which climate change can be attributed to human actions, a view that, he said, the vast majority of scientists do not share.
In a statement, Exxon Mobil said the Royal Society had “inaccurately and unfairly described our company.” It added: “We know that carbon emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change — we don’t debate or dispute this.”
Exxon Mobil said it was taking steps to minimize emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from its operations.
In a letter sent to Exxon Mobil this month, the Royal Society said it was “very difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change science in these documents with Exxon Mobil’s claims to be an industry leader.”
The letter states that Exxon Mobil pledged in July, after a meeting with the society, to stop financing organizations that spread information the society considers misleading, and it asks for proof that the financing has stopped.
In 2005, Exxon Mobil sent $2.9 million to 39 groups active in the United States that spread misleading information about climate change, Mr. Ward said, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the International Policy Network and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
Exxon Mobil said in its statement that it gave financial support to organizations that “research significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company.” These organizations do not speak on the company’s behalf, nor does it control their views and messages, Exxon Mobil said.
(Compare these tactics to the Tobacco Industry and "Sick Building Syndrome:")
Healthy Buildings International - A Case Study of the Tobacco Industry's Use of a Third Party Front Group
by Anne Landman, Tobaccodocuments.org
Information about the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) became widespread in the mid to late 1980s, and was diminshing the social acceptability of smoking worldwide. As smoking restrictions led to fewer and fewer locations where people could smoke, the tobacco industry perceived a massive threat to its profitability. They had to act. The industry knew, though, that it could not act on its own behalf on the secondhand smoke issue because acting in its own self-interest would render it completely lacking in credibility. The remedy was to deflect attention away from secondhand smoke entirely by employing a highly visible, and credible, third party to publicly focus on the broader issue of indoor air pollution in general. The Tobacco Institute and Philip Morris in particular found an effective voice in Gray Robertson, head of a company called ACVA Atlantic (Air Conditioning Ventilation Associates), that specialized in indoor building environments. In return for tobacco industry support, Gray Robertson began a widepsread campaign to deflect attention away from ETS, by broadening the issue into one of indoor air pollution in general ("ventilation"), Robertson invented the notion of "Sick Building Syndrome," widely touted in the late 1980s in magazines and electronic media. The tobacco industry send Robertson on national media tours, employed him to give "expert testimony" at public hearings to help defeat clean indoor air legislation, to write articles debunking the notion that cigarette smoke indoors was a serious problem, and to give "informational" presentations on the industry's spin on indoor air issues to policymakers and employees of regulatory agencies. The tobacco industry eventually assumed the financing of Robertson's business, re-naming it Healthy Buildings International (HBI). They set up HBI satellite offices began to promote HBI internationally, using it effectively to help combat volunatary and regulatory smoking restrictions in countries around the world.
No date: TI arranges media tours for Gray Robertson/ACVA
No date: HBI Fact Sheet
Describes the cost of "not curing sick building syndrome" (Sick building syndrom was heavily promoted by HBI to broaden the subject of clean indoor air and deflect attention from the isue of indoor secondhand smoke)
No date: HBI linked financially to the Tobacco Institute
Note to "Marty" from Martha Rinker, Issue Manager at the Tobacco Institue re: "Invoice not in question is for $18,962.05. Susan has told Gray we will pick up 65% of it for materials used in FH/HBI [Fleishman Hllliard/HBI] promotion and media tours for TI. $12,325.33 from TI, balance picked up by Gray."
No date: Tobacco Institue budget includes "HBI Retainer"
No date: AD: " If You Still Think Indoor Air Pollution Is Caused by Smokers, You Must Have Your Head in the Clouds"
Advertisement promoting Robertson's business, ACVA, obviously benefits the tobacco industry
1986: Robertson writes letter to the editor that favors tobacco industry's position on ETS
"The absence of tobacco smoke may actually eliminate the one tell-talk 'marker' we now have that a ventilation system if failing."
06 Mar 1986: TI arranges seminar schedule to accommodate Gray Robertson, head of ACVA (HBI)
Letter from Tobacco Institute to Gray Robertson of ACVA Atlantic (the predecessor to HBI) telling him that a seminar Robertson was scheduled to do for the OSHA directors of the AFL-CIO was re-scheduled to accommodate planned Gray's vacation time.
03 Apr 1986: Robertson tows industry's line with legislators and media
States that Gray Robertson contacted the Kansas City Mayor, City Council as well as the local press (on behalf of the Tobacco Institute)
1986: Tobacco Institute plans to use Robertson and ACVA at Government Relations seminar
Makes plans regarding Robertson's presentations at an upcoming 1986 Government Relations seminar
1987: Ventilation issue: TI searches for allies with similar commercial interests:, e.g. ventilation equipment manufacturers
Discusses HBI Magazine, it's intended targets (certain countries), and states "the select audiences are those which plausibly have commercial interests compatible with those of the publisher [PM]: building owners and managers, architects, engineers...Companies and Associations with vested interest in IAQ issues, each with reasons to want their product or service featured in the magazine, e.g. all ventilation-related manufacturers...HVAC installation and cleaning services..." The magazine is intended to provide a continuum of messages which support other (company specific) activities in market...e.g. briefings, building studies, academic seminars, technical guest lecture series..."
1987: Strategy continues for deflecting attention away from secondhand smoke
"Strategy I: Focus greater attention on the broader issue of indoor air quality and the need for improved ventilation systems..." Strategy II: "Continue to broaden political and professional relationships with org's and individuals concerned with the issue of indoor air quality..." TACTICS: 1) Conduct at least one ACVA indoor quality and two ETS Truth Squad media tours per month. Conduct at least one media tour per month in unionized regions of the country....2) In conjunction with ACVA (a company devoted to the identification and control on internal pollution problems in public and commercial buildings)...3) Conduct at least 500 briefings on IAQ issues with officials from labor, industry, trade, environmental groups and media throughout 1988. Conduct briefings before at least 20 state/local labor councils on workplace smoking issues. ...ACVA Advertising Campaign. Two ACVA indoor air quality ads used in conjunction with ACVA media tours...FEDERAL: January and April briefings of Members of Congress by ...ACVA's Gray Robertson.
1987: TI makes clear statements on broadening the issue...
Reveals strategy of broadening the IAQ issue. Quote: "...On overall strategy of broadening the issue: "IAQ --> ETS may be a problem, but if so, one minor one in a sea of indoor air pollution. Ventilation is answer."
1987: Robertson writes paper: "Smoking Restrictions: The hidden threat to public health"
Paper written by Gray Robertson, highly critical of smoking restrictions.
1987 (est.): PM plans to resist/combat smoking restrictions in Nordic Areas of Europe, in part by using ACVA/HBI
ETS Plan, Nordic Area 1987 : "Objectives: 1. Resist smoking restrictions. 2. Restore smoker confidence. 3. Preserve liability defence. Pre-requisites: 4. Reverse scientific and popular misconception that ETS is harmful. 5. Restore social acceptability of smoking."
1987 (est.): Philip Morris intereferes with public smoking issues in Nordic Areas using ACVA
Using ACVA as a credible third party, PM plans to "BUILD IAQ industry and science without visible tobacco industry presence" -- "The key to success is credibility, which in the Nordic area means that the tobacco industry has a low profile in stage 1 while working through other parties."
21 Nov 1987 (est.): Purpose of HBI: "to reduce credibility of Repace and Banzhaf"
Undated, handwritten notes about a meeting with HBI, states that it is a "deliberate effort to reduce credibility - Repace and Banzhaf"
18 Sep 1988: Robertson a Perk from the Tobacco Insitute: tickets to World Championship Redskins vs. Eagles game !
$30.00 per ticket in 1988, three tickets!
1989: Lobbying strategies to oppose even VOLUNTARY clean indoor air measures...
Strategy 1: Oppose legislative, regulatory, judicial AND VOLUNTARY efforts to discriminate unfairly against smokers. Attempt to reverse existing restrictions....Look for legislative opportunities to repeal, modify, or rollback existing legislative, regulatory, administrative or judicial mandates restricting smokers' use of tobacco products in public places..." Reveals strategy of paying honoraria to policy makers in lieu of campaign contributions.
1989: TI's Media Relations Strategies use ACVA
"Continue at least one ACVA medis tour per month,with Gray Robertson providing perspective onthe relative role of ETS as it relates to other indoor air quality issues..."
04 Oct 1989: Tobacco Institute begins formal take-over of financing of HBI
Contractual agreement in which the Tobacco Institute agrees to pay for eight branch offices of HBI around the United States.
23 Aug 1990: Gray Robertson bills Tobacco Institute's law firm of Covington and Burling for creation of a prototype of "HBI Magazine"
Payments laundered through law firm to cover up tobacco industry involvement?
Sep 1990: HBI criticizes proposed smoking ban in Palm Springs, CA 9/1990
This critique of a proposed smoking ban by the (tobacco-industry linked) Healthy Buildings International (HBI)in Palm Springs, CA concludes that banning smoking will do nothing to provide cleaner air in indoor areas in Palm Springs.
27 Sep 1990: Gray Robertson bills John Rupp of Covington and Burling for first run of HBI Magazine
Laundering payments through law firm to cover up Tobacco industry involvement?
1991: Budget for TI Consultants on Public Smoking issues - includes budget for promoting of HBI
Lists those the TI uses for consulting work on ETS issues; Budget for HBI in 1991, $375,000 and for Fleishman Hillard (which promoted HBI for the Tobacco Institute)in 1991: $130,000
1991: Philip Morris sends HBI "Truth Squad" on media tours 1991
Philip Morris sent Healthy Buildings International on a media tours to deflect attention from ETS issues. Nine appearances scheduled in 1991.
13 Mar 1991: Tobacco Institute becomes frustrated with Robertson, not getting their money's worth, wants more control
"...So far we've gone along with whatever Gray wanted to do, which was fine from his perspective but doesn't do much for us....There are ways we can make better use of the resource..Some of this will mean that [TI] staff becomes more directly involved in the production of the thing [referring to HBI Magazine], which should be happening anyway, given the investment we've made...
30 May 1991: Tobacco Institute asks Robertson to introduce idea of "Sick Hospitals" in media tours
Provides Robertson, the expert, with talking points.
27 Aug 1991: Tobacco Institute funds the set up of an HBI office in Boston
Office, however, received little attention as "sick building syndrome"-mania wanes. Office gets few phone calls and Tobacco Institute cuts funding from $8,000 in 1990 to $6,000 in 1991 and then finally to $3,000 in 1992. Gray says he agrees there is "insufficient justification for TI's involvement."
1992: Tobacco Institute Incorporates HBI into its "multi-pronged strategy"
Incorporates use of HBI in a multi-pronged strategy to "expand the industry's indoor air quality program" - Includes plans to "launch new media tours for HBI," and "Seek opportunities for HBI...to deliver their message on enevery and ventilation to state and local busines groups." "HBI continue[s] to be available to testify as expert witnesses in legislative forums." Also, "Develop new opportunities...for HBI...to speak before labor groups."
1992: HBI used internationally to combat smoking restrictions
Spanish-language promotion for HBI
(Gray Robertson, orchestrator of a "climate of uncertainty" about second hand smoke, is now behind the website JunkScience.com, which attempts to do the same thing for global warming.)
And, compare those stories with this missive:
Substances Tied to Attention Deficit
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, The New York Times, September 19, 2006
About a third of attention deficit cases among American children may be linked with tobacco smoke before birth or to lead exposure afterward, according to new research. Even levels of lead the government considers acceptable appeared to increase a child’s risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, the study found. The study is to be published online today in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. The disorder affects up to 12 percent of school-age children.
California Sues 6 Automakers Over Global Warming
By NICK BUNKLEY, The New York Times, September 21, 2006
California, which has battled the automotive industry over new global warming regulations for years, sued the world’s six-largest automakers yesterday, demanding that they pay for environmental damage caused by the emissions of their vehicles.
“Global warming is causing significant harm to California’s environment, economy, agriculture and public health,” said the state’s attorney general, Bill Lockyer.
“Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act.”
The suit, filed in United States District Court in Northern California, is the first such attempt to hold automakers accountable for the greenhouse gases that vehicles produce. It accuses General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Chrysler and Nissan of creating a public nuisance by building millions of vehicles that collectively discharge 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.
Mr. Lockyer contends that the products of the six companies are responsible for a fifth of the carbon dioxide emissions nationwide and nearly a third of the emissions in California, which has more vehicles than any other state.
He said he would seek at least “tens of millions” in damages for past, current and future contributions to air pollution, beach erosion and reduced water supplies.
The automakers named in the suit declined to comment on it directly, but a trade group representing them labeled the accusations a “nuisance suit” similar to an unsuccessful attempt by several Northeastern states to hold utilities liable for environmental damages.
“Automakers are already building cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles,” the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, based in Washington, said in a statement. “Today’s autos are 99 percent cleaner than a generation ago, and every model of auto is now available with some type of fuel-efficient technology.”
Dave Barthmuss, a G.M. spokesman in Los Angeles, said the automaker was working toward the eventual goal of selling clean, hydrogen-powered vehicles and, as an interim step, had invested in technology like flex-fuel engines.
“We are spending significant financial and human resources to commercialize alternatives,” Mr. Barthmuss said.
James D. Marston, director of the energy program at the nonprofit Environmental Defense, said G.M., Ford and Chrysler could improve their bottom lines by reducing emissions. He cited a study released this week by transportation researchers at the University of Michigan that suggested the three automakers would sell more cars, adding $2 billion in annual profits, by raising the fuel economy of their vehicles only a few miles per gallon.
The industry is “wasting a lot of money paying lawyers to fight, and we ought to be spending that money on engineering,” Mr. Marston said. “Automobile manufacturers need to get the message that they’ve got to do something different. ”
Mr. Lockyer, a Democrat, is campaigning this fall to become California’s treasurer. Some industry observers believe the suit to be merely a ploy to attract votes, but Mr. Lockyer disputed that in an interview yesterday. “What am I supposed to do, not do my job because there’s an election?” he said.
He also said the suit was not an attempt to persuade automakers to back off their legal challenges to rules enacted by the state aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2004, the state enacted similar requirements for auto emissions, which the automakers sought to throw out in federal court. That law was aimed at reducing pollution created by cars and light trucks by 25 percent and from sport utility vehicles by 18 percent.
Last month, the California Legislature passed a measure designed to regulate industries’ production of greenhouse gases. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to sign the bill into law this month.
Marc H. Ross, a professor of physics at the University of Michigan who has studied automobile emissions, said automakers set themselves up to become a target of environmentalists as they worked to maximize sales of sport utility vehicles.
“Regardless of the negative social aspects of those vehicles, they proceeded to develop that market as much as they could,’’ he said.
Global Warming Subject for Directors at Big Companies
By CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH, The New York Times, September 21, 2006
If corporate directors really understood the implications of global warming, would they steer their companies toward preventing it?
Ceres, a coalition of environmentalists and investors; Yale University; and Marsh, the risk and insurance services unit of Marsh & McLennan , insist the answer is yes. And this winter, they will hold what they call sustainable governance forums to give directors an overview of the financial, legal, business and investor implications of climate change.
“Climate change is no longer the purview of scientists only,’’ said James Gustave Speth, dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. “The widespread ramifications of unchecked climate change require that more leaders in our society understand its implications.’’
Actually, many corporate executives appear to be well aware of the link between greenhouse gases and climate change. More than 80 percent of the companies that provided data for the Carbon Disclosure Project, a report detailing corporate response to global warming issues, acknowledged the potential risks and benefits of climate change. But fewer than half said they were working to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
Ceres, Yale and Marsh say they can give directors incentives and practical tools to spur more companies to action. They expect that at least 200 directors of Fortune 1000 companies will attend the forums.
Marsh, which is helping to develop the curriculum and also contributing $250,000 to produce materials for the course, sees educating directors on climate change as a perfect fit with its growth strategy.
“We advise companies on a whole spectrum of risks, be it terrorism or climate change, and this is a huge opportunity to help us grow our business,’’ said Brian Storms, chairman of Marsh.
By HEATHER TIMMONS, The New York Times, September 21, 2006
LONDON, Sept. 20 — A British scientific group, the Royal Society, contends that Exxon Mobil is spreading “inaccurate and misleading” information about climate change and is financing groups that misinform the public on the issue.
The Royal Society, a 1,400-member organization that dates back to the 1600’s and has counted Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, asked Exxon Mobil in a letter this month to stop financing these groups and to change its public reports to reflect more accurately the opinions of scientists on the issue.
There is a “false sense somehow that there is a two-sided debate going on in the scientific community” about the origins of climate change, said Bob Ward, the senior manager for policy communication at the Royal Society.
The reality is that “thousands and thousands” of scientists around the world agree that climate change is linked to greenhouse gases, he said, with “one or two professional contrarians” who disagree.
Dozens of lobbying groups, some of them receiving financing from Exxon Mobil, are relying on these contrarians as experts, Mr. Ward said. Meanwhile, he said, Exxon Mobil writes in documents it distributes to the public that it is difficult to determine the extent to which climate change can be attributed to human actions, a view that, he said, the vast majority of scientists do not share.
In a statement, Exxon Mobil said the Royal Society had “inaccurately and unfairly described our company.” It added: “We know that carbon emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change — we don’t debate or dispute this.”
Exxon Mobil said it was taking steps to minimize emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from its operations.
In a letter sent to Exxon Mobil this month, the Royal Society said it was “very difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change science in these documents with Exxon Mobil’s claims to be an industry leader.”
The letter states that Exxon Mobil pledged in July, after a meeting with the society, to stop financing organizations that spread information the society considers misleading, and it asks for proof that the financing has stopped.
In 2005, Exxon Mobil sent $2.9 million to 39 groups active in the United States that spread misleading information about climate change, Mr. Ward said, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the International Policy Network and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
Exxon Mobil said in its statement that it gave financial support to organizations that “research significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company.” These organizations do not speak on the company’s behalf, nor does it control their views and messages, Exxon Mobil said.
(Compare these tactics to the Tobacco Industry and "Sick Building Syndrome:")
Healthy Buildings International - A Case Study of the Tobacco Industry's Use of a Third Party Front Group
by Anne Landman, Tobaccodocuments.org
Information about the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) became widespread in the mid to late 1980s, and was diminshing the social acceptability of smoking worldwide. As smoking restrictions led to fewer and fewer locations where people could smoke, the tobacco industry perceived a massive threat to its profitability. They had to act. The industry knew, though, that it could not act on its own behalf on the secondhand smoke issue because acting in its own self-interest would render it completely lacking in credibility. The remedy was to deflect attention away from secondhand smoke entirely by employing a highly visible, and credible, third party to publicly focus on the broader issue of indoor air pollution in general. The Tobacco Institute and Philip Morris in particular found an effective voice in Gray Robertson, head of a company called ACVA Atlantic (Air Conditioning Ventilation Associates), that specialized in indoor building environments. In return for tobacco industry support, Gray Robertson began a widepsread campaign to deflect attention away from ETS, by broadening the issue into one of indoor air pollution in general ("ventilation"), Robertson invented the notion of "Sick Building Syndrome," widely touted in the late 1980s in magazines and electronic media. The tobacco industry send Robertson on national media tours, employed him to give "expert testimony" at public hearings to help defeat clean indoor air legislation, to write articles debunking the notion that cigarette smoke indoors was a serious problem, and to give "informational" presentations on the industry's spin on indoor air issues to policymakers and employees of regulatory agencies. The tobacco industry eventually assumed the financing of Robertson's business, re-naming it Healthy Buildings International (HBI). They set up HBI satellite offices began to promote HBI internationally, using it effectively to help combat volunatary and regulatory smoking restrictions in countries around the world.
No date: TI arranges media tours for Gray Robertson/ACVA
No date: HBI Fact Sheet
Describes the cost of "not curing sick building syndrome" (Sick building syndrom was heavily promoted by HBI to broaden the subject of clean indoor air and deflect attention from the isue of indoor secondhand smoke)
No date: HBI linked financially to the Tobacco Institute
Note to "Marty" from Martha Rinker, Issue Manager at the Tobacco Institue re: "Invoice not in question is for $18,962.05. Susan has told Gray we will pick up 65% of it for materials used in FH/HBI [Fleishman Hllliard/HBI] promotion and media tours for TI. $12,325.33 from TI, balance picked up by Gray."
No date: Tobacco Institue budget includes "HBI Retainer"
No date: AD: " If You Still Think Indoor Air Pollution Is Caused by Smokers, You Must Have Your Head in the Clouds"
Advertisement promoting Robertson's business, ACVA, obviously benefits the tobacco industry
1986: Robertson writes letter to the editor that favors tobacco industry's position on ETS
"The absence of tobacco smoke may actually eliminate the one tell-talk 'marker' we now have that a ventilation system if failing."
06 Mar 1986: TI arranges seminar schedule to accommodate Gray Robertson, head of ACVA (HBI)
Letter from Tobacco Institute to Gray Robertson of ACVA Atlantic (the predecessor to HBI) telling him that a seminar Robertson was scheduled to do for the OSHA directors of the AFL-CIO was re-scheduled to accommodate planned Gray's vacation time.
03 Apr 1986: Robertson tows industry's line with legislators and media
States that Gray Robertson contacted the Kansas City Mayor, City Council as well as the local press (on behalf of the Tobacco Institute)
1986: Tobacco Institute plans to use Robertson and ACVA at Government Relations seminar
Makes plans regarding Robertson's presentations at an upcoming 1986 Government Relations seminar
1987: Ventilation issue: TI searches for allies with similar commercial interests:, e.g. ventilation equipment manufacturers
Discusses HBI Magazine, it's intended targets (certain countries), and states "the select audiences are those which plausibly have commercial interests compatible with those of the publisher [PM]: building owners and managers, architects, engineers...Companies and Associations with vested interest in IAQ issues, each with reasons to want their product or service featured in the magazine, e.g. all ventilation-related manufacturers...HVAC installation and cleaning services..." The magazine is intended to provide a continuum of messages which support other (company specific) activities in market...e.g. briefings, building studies, academic seminars, technical guest lecture series..."
1987: Strategy continues for deflecting attention away from secondhand smoke
"Strategy I: Focus greater attention on the broader issue of indoor air quality and the need for improved ventilation systems..." Strategy II: "Continue to broaden political and professional relationships with org's and individuals concerned with the issue of indoor air quality..." TACTICS: 1) Conduct at least one ACVA indoor quality and two ETS Truth Squad media tours per month. Conduct at least one media tour per month in unionized regions of the country....2) In conjunction with ACVA (a company devoted to the identification and control on internal pollution problems in public and commercial buildings)...3) Conduct at least 500 briefings on IAQ issues with officials from labor, industry, trade, environmental groups and media throughout 1988. Conduct briefings before at least 20 state/local labor councils on workplace smoking issues. ...ACVA Advertising Campaign. Two ACVA indoor air quality ads used in conjunction with ACVA media tours...FEDERAL: January and April briefings of Members of Congress by ...ACVA's Gray Robertson.
1987: TI makes clear statements on broadening the issue...
Reveals strategy of broadening the IAQ issue. Quote: "...On overall strategy of broadening the issue: "IAQ --> ETS may be a problem, but if so, one minor one in a sea of indoor air pollution. Ventilation is answer."
1987: Robertson writes paper: "Smoking Restrictions: The hidden threat to public health"
Paper written by Gray Robertson, highly critical of smoking restrictions.
1987 (est.): PM plans to resist/combat smoking restrictions in Nordic Areas of Europe, in part by using ACVA/HBI
ETS Plan, Nordic Area 1987 : "Objectives: 1. Resist smoking restrictions. 2. Restore smoker confidence. 3. Preserve liability defence. Pre-requisites: 4. Reverse scientific and popular misconception that ETS is harmful. 5. Restore social acceptability of smoking."
1987 (est.): Philip Morris intereferes with public smoking issues in Nordic Areas using ACVA
Using ACVA as a credible third party, PM plans to "BUILD IAQ industry and science without visible tobacco industry presence" -- "The key to success is credibility, which in the Nordic area means that the tobacco industry has a low profile in stage 1 while working through other parties."
21 Nov 1987 (est.): Purpose of HBI: "to reduce credibility of Repace and Banzhaf"
Undated, handwritten notes about a meeting with HBI, states that it is a "deliberate effort to reduce credibility - Repace and Banzhaf"
18 Sep 1988: Robertson a Perk from the Tobacco Insitute: tickets to World Championship Redskins vs. Eagles game !
$30.00 per ticket in 1988, three tickets!
1989: Lobbying strategies to oppose even VOLUNTARY clean indoor air measures...
Strategy 1: Oppose legislative, regulatory, judicial AND VOLUNTARY efforts to discriminate unfairly against smokers. Attempt to reverse existing restrictions....Look for legislative opportunities to repeal, modify, or rollback existing legislative, regulatory, administrative or judicial mandates restricting smokers' use of tobacco products in public places..." Reveals strategy of paying honoraria to policy makers in lieu of campaign contributions.
1989: TI's Media Relations Strategies use ACVA
"Continue at least one ACVA medis tour per month,with Gray Robertson providing perspective onthe relative role of ETS as it relates to other indoor air quality issues..."
04 Oct 1989: Tobacco Institute begins formal take-over of financing of HBI
Contractual agreement in which the Tobacco Institute agrees to pay for eight branch offices of HBI around the United States.
23 Aug 1990: Gray Robertson bills Tobacco Institute's law firm of Covington and Burling for creation of a prototype of "HBI Magazine"
Payments laundered through law firm to cover up tobacco industry involvement?
Sep 1990: HBI criticizes proposed smoking ban in Palm Springs, CA 9/1990
This critique of a proposed smoking ban by the (tobacco-industry linked) Healthy Buildings International (HBI)in Palm Springs, CA concludes that banning smoking will do nothing to provide cleaner air in indoor areas in Palm Springs.
27 Sep 1990: Gray Robertson bills John Rupp of Covington and Burling for first run of HBI Magazine
Laundering payments through law firm to cover up Tobacco industry involvement?
1991: Budget for TI Consultants on Public Smoking issues - includes budget for promoting of HBI
Lists those the TI uses for consulting work on ETS issues; Budget for HBI in 1991, $375,000 and for Fleishman Hillard (which promoted HBI for the Tobacco Institute)in 1991: $130,000
1991: Philip Morris sends HBI "Truth Squad" on media tours 1991
Philip Morris sent Healthy Buildings International on a media tours to deflect attention from ETS issues. Nine appearances scheduled in 1991.
13 Mar 1991: Tobacco Institute becomes frustrated with Robertson, not getting their money's worth, wants more control
"...So far we've gone along with whatever Gray wanted to do, which was fine from his perspective but doesn't do much for us....There are ways we can make better use of the resource..Some of this will mean that [TI] staff becomes more directly involved in the production of the thing [referring to HBI Magazine], which should be happening anyway, given the investment we've made...
30 May 1991: Tobacco Institute asks Robertson to introduce idea of "Sick Hospitals" in media tours
Provides Robertson, the expert, with talking points.
27 Aug 1991: Tobacco Institute funds the set up of an HBI office in Boston
Office, however, received little attention as "sick building syndrome"-mania wanes. Office gets few phone calls and Tobacco Institute cuts funding from $8,000 in 1990 to $6,000 in 1991 and then finally to $3,000 in 1992. Gray says he agrees there is "insufficient justification for TI's involvement."
1992: Tobacco Institute Incorporates HBI into its "multi-pronged strategy"
Incorporates use of HBI in a multi-pronged strategy to "expand the industry's indoor air quality program" - Includes plans to "launch new media tours for HBI," and "Seek opportunities for HBI...to deliver their message on enevery and ventilation to state and local busines groups." "HBI continue[s] to be available to testify as expert witnesses in legislative forums." Also, "Develop new opportunities...for HBI...to speak before labor groups."
1992: HBI used internationally to combat smoking restrictions
Spanish-language promotion for HBI
(Gray Robertson, orchestrator of a "climate of uncertainty" about second hand smoke, is now behind the website JunkScience.com, which attempts to do the same thing for global warming.)
And, compare those stories with this missive:
Substances Tied to Attention Deficit
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, The New York Times, September 19, 2006
About a third of attention deficit cases among American children may be linked with tobacco smoke before birth or to lead exposure afterward, according to new research. Even levels of lead the government considers acceptable appeared to increase a child’s risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, the study found. The study is to be published online today in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. The disorder affects up to 12 percent of school-age children.
California Sues 6 Automakers Over Global Warming
By NICK BUNKLEY, The New York Times, September 21, 2006
California, which has battled the automotive industry over new global warming regulations for years, sued the world’s six-largest automakers yesterday, demanding that they pay for environmental damage caused by the emissions of their vehicles.
“Global warming is causing significant harm to California’s environment, economy, agriculture and public health,” said the state’s attorney general, Bill Lockyer.
“Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act.”
The suit, filed in United States District Court in Northern California, is the first such attempt to hold automakers accountable for the greenhouse gases that vehicles produce. It accuses General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Chrysler and Nissan of creating a public nuisance by building millions of vehicles that collectively discharge 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.
Mr. Lockyer contends that the products of the six companies are responsible for a fifth of the carbon dioxide emissions nationwide and nearly a third of the emissions in California, which has more vehicles than any other state.
He said he would seek at least “tens of millions” in damages for past, current and future contributions to air pollution, beach erosion and reduced water supplies.
The automakers named in the suit declined to comment on it directly, but a trade group representing them labeled the accusations a “nuisance suit” similar to an unsuccessful attempt by several Northeastern states to hold utilities liable for environmental damages.
“Automakers are already building cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles,” the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, based in Washington, said in a statement. “Today’s autos are 99 percent cleaner than a generation ago, and every model of auto is now available with some type of fuel-efficient technology.”
Dave Barthmuss, a G.M. spokesman in Los Angeles, said the automaker was working toward the eventual goal of selling clean, hydrogen-powered vehicles and, as an interim step, had invested in technology like flex-fuel engines.
“We are spending significant financial and human resources to commercialize alternatives,” Mr. Barthmuss said.
James D. Marston, director of the energy program at the nonprofit Environmental Defense, said G.M., Ford and Chrysler could improve their bottom lines by reducing emissions. He cited a study released this week by transportation researchers at the University of Michigan that suggested the three automakers would sell more cars, adding $2 billion in annual profits, by raising the fuel economy of their vehicles only a few miles per gallon.
The industry is “wasting a lot of money paying lawyers to fight, and we ought to be spending that money on engineering,” Mr. Marston said. “Automobile manufacturers need to get the message that they’ve got to do something different. ”
Mr. Lockyer, a Democrat, is campaigning this fall to become California’s treasurer. Some industry observers believe the suit to be merely a ploy to attract votes, but Mr. Lockyer disputed that in an interview yesterday. “What am I supposed to do, not do my job because there’s an election?” he said.
He also said the suit was not an attempt to persuade automakers to back off their legal challenges to rules enacted by the state aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2004, the state enacted similar requirements for auto emissions, which the automakers sought to throw out in federal court. That law was aimed at reducing pollution created by cars and light trucks by 25 percent and from sport utility vehicles by 18 percent.
Last month, the California Legislature passed a measure designed to regulate industries’ production of greenhouse gases. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to sign the bill into law this month.
Marc H. Ross, a professor of physics at the University of Michigan who has studied automobile emissions, said automakers set themselves up to become a target of environmentalists as they worked to maximize sales of sport utility vehicles.
“Regardless of the negative social aspects of those vehicles, they proceeded to develop that market as much as they could,’’ he said.
Global Warming Subject for Directors at Big Companies
By CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH, The New York Times, September 21, 2006
If corporate directors really understood the implications of global warming, would they steer their companies toward preventing it?
Ceres, a coalition of environmentalists and investors; Yale University; and Marsh, the risk and insurance services unit of Marsh & McLennan , insist the answer is yes. And this winter, they will hold what they call sustainable governance forums to give directors an overview of the financial, legal, business and investor implications of climate change.
“Climate change is no longer the purview of scientists only,’’ said James Gustave Speth, dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. “The widespread ramifications of unchecked climate change require that more leaders in our society understand its implications.’’
Actually, many corporate executives appear to be well aware of the link between greenhouse gases and climate change. More than 80 percent of the companies that provided data for the Carbon Disclosure Project, a report detailing corporate response to global warming issues, acknowledged the potential risks and benefits of climate change. But fewer than half said they were working to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
Ceres, Yale and Marsh say they can give directors incentives and practical tools to spur more companies to action. They expect that at least 200 directors of Fortune 1000 companies will attend the forums.
Marsh, which is helping to develop the curriculum and also contributing $250,000 to produce materials for the course, sees educating directors on climate change as a perfect fit with its growth strategy.
“We advise companies on a whole spectrum of risks, be it terrorism or climate change, and this is a huge opportunity to help us grow our business,’’ said Brian Storms, chairman of Marsh.
