Corrupt climate experts trapped - Greenpeace UK

Funny atmosphere at Le Bourget: the text is locked behind closed doors. The French presidency of COP21 is pushing to obtain an agreement on time, in order to be able to announce a diplomatic success. No doubt to the detriment of the substance: pressed for time, the negotiators are very likely to agree on a minimum text. Soft, very soft consensus. The options likely to lead to real solutions to climate change are gently eclipsed. And both frustration and concern are rising among NGOs.

At the same time, we are publishing a vast investigation that shows how the oil industry is able to very easily bribe academics to publish reports that are misleading but in line with their commercial interests.

Knowledge is power

In climate issues as in any other political issue, knowledge is power. Negotiations provide a good demonstration of this basic relationship. All the measures that are debated are based on figures presented as scientific – at least as reliable. The construction of facts is therefore a major issue. They are the ones who make it possible to frame a problem in a certain way, they who, therefore, legitimize certain arguments, they again who serve as concrete objectives. And it is moreover a real fight to have certain scientific facts accepted, such as the reality of climate change, its anthropogenic origin and the need to keep the increase in temperatures below 1.5°C by the end of end of the century.

To move in the political balance of power that structures society, one must therefore be able to produce expertise, objective discourse. Elements that polarize the debate and demonstrate certain truths. And which obviously serve to bring down all the work of influence to defend certain interests. This is how a whole army of lobbyists lives handsomely in charge of defending the particular interests of the worst industrialists. But also a good number of “experts” recognized as such by the institutions, like certain professors emeritus.

However, the fossil fuel industry is naturally fond of services. An investigation has even been opened in the United States against Exxon Mobile, in order to sanction its “brainwashing” practices: brainwashing, to put it vulgarly. In the following story, we show how it is possible for these companies to buy academic reports to challenge the harmfulness of fossil fuels on the climate.

Can we buy scientific knowledge?

For six months, some members of the English office of Greenpeace posed as representatives of coal and oil companies, in order to investigate academic work around fossil fuels. They therefore asked famous professors from the universities of Princeton and Pennsylvania to write articles favorable to the exploitation of oil and coal for developing countries, for a fee.

Professor William Happer, a leading climate-skeptical scholar, agreed to write a report for a 'Middle Eastern oil company' (let's call it 'Greenpeace Petroleum') and not disclose its source of funding . To situate the character, W. Happer was to speak yesterday afternoon before the United States Senate, as the main speaker at a hearing organized by the Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz.

They also asked Professor Frank Clemente, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, if he could write a report to "counter the damaging research that links anthrax to premature deaths, particularly the number of the WHO that 3.7 million people die each year from fossil fuel pollution.” would take around $15,000 for an 8-10 page article.

When asked if he needed to make the source of funds public, Professor Clemente said magnanimously: “There is no requirement to disclose funding sources in the United States” . In support, he cited the example of a speech and a platform financed by Peabody Energy, the largest coal company on the planet, adding: “In neither of these cases has the sponsor been identified. I publish all my work as an independent researcher. »

Professor Clemente also claimed that for another report on “the world value of coal” he had received the sum of $50,000 from Peabody Energy. The source of funding was mentioned in fine print at the end of the article, but the amount received had never been disclosed.

This predisposition of Professors Happer and Clemente to keep funding sources secret naturally goes against the ethics of certain scientific journals. The journal Science, for example, states in its conditions for submission of articles that all authors of research "must clearly state their affiliations, sources of funding or financial participations which could raise questions about possible conflicts of interest". . However, the shortcomings must be legion, if we stick to the ease with which the representatives of “Greenpeace Petroleum” were able to obtain what they wanted.

Interest laundering

The investigation also revealed the existence of "alternative routes" allowing foreign oil and gas companies to fund, while maintaining anonymity, scientists and US climate-skeptic organizations.

When asked to guarantee that it would be impossible to trace the source of funding for a report to the Middle East, another professor, Mr. Happer, contacted William (Bill) O'Keefe, one of his colleagues on the board of directors of the think-tank CO2 Coalition and a former lobbyist for Exxon. The latter suggested placing the order through Donors Trust, a controversial organization that collects anonymous donations, sometimes dubbed “the dirty money vending machine” of the American conservative movement.

When investigators asked Peter Lipsett of the Donors Trust if the organization would accept money from an oil company based in the Middle East, he responded – notwithstanding that the Trust preferred the money to come from a US bank account: “We can accept [funds] from a foreign agency, but we'll just have to be very careful. »

Expertise laundering

Our undercover reporters/investigators have also asked Professor Happer, who sits on the Academic Advisory Board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), s could subject the industry-funded report to the same 'peer review' process. The same process that would have allowed for “careful peer review” of previous GWPF reports. Professor Happer explained that this process involves having the reports evaluated by members of the Advisory Board and other selected scientists, rather than submitting them to an academic journal.

He added: “I would be happy to request a similar process for the first drafts of the text that I will write for your clients. Unless we decide to submit the text to a classic journal – with all the complications of delays, even novel editors and reviewers that entails – that is the best thing to do, and I think we can referred to as 'peer review'”. Calm. A way of merging financial capital and symbolic capital, private money and public accountability.

For the record, the GWPF recently used the trusty “peer review” system for a report on the benefits of carbon dioxide. Dr Indur Goklany, author of the report in question, claims to have been initially encouraged to write it by journalist Matt Ridley, who is also a member of the GWPF Advisory Council, who later stated in the columns of The Times, a major British newspaper , that the report had been "thoroughly peer-reviewed".

CQFD

Commenting on the results of the survey, Greenpeace UK Director John Sauven said: "This survey lifts the veil on a network of academics willing to sell their services that allow fossil fuel companies to secretly influence the climate debate without leaving a trace. Our research reveals that some professors from prestigious universities can be secretly funded by these companies to produce reports that cast doubt on climate change. The question that now arises is very simple: over the years, how many scientific reports that have cast doubt on climate change have actually been financed by the oil, coal and gas industries? This survey shows how they proceed; we now need to elucidate where and when they did it. It's time to shed some light on the climate skeptics. »

He added: “Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation needs to clear up some far-reaching questions. Can she tolerate a member of her academic advisory board being secretly funded by an alleged Middle Eastern oil company to produce a report? Were reports from top Lawson Foundation officials secretly paid for by the fossil fuel industry? Would the foundation have accepted Professor Happer's proposal to validate a report financed by the oil industry via a process similar to that of the "peer review" of the said foundation? Would the foundation admit that its peer review process “is bogus, given Prof Happer’s revelations of how he previously proceeded on another report? Does the foundation support its academic adviser, Matt Ridley, who described the report as “carefully peer-reviewed”? The dollars seem to have received more scrutiny than the data.

Democratic money laundering

In view of this investigation, a very simple question arises. Over the years, how many scientific reports invalidating global warming or understating its dynamics have been funded directly by the oil, coal and gas industry? What is the share of responsibility of fossil companies, interested think tanks, crooked academics, in the bewildering skepticism shown by the American senatorial majority vis-à-vis climate change? What impact on collective representations and popular beliefs in American society? How many latent, discreet conflicts of interest are there at Le Bourget among the experts who haunt the corridors?

The United States, the world's leading diplomacy in terms of its military strength and economic power, is the key player in the ongoing negotiations in this COP21. And for the moment their commitment is not up to par. But what is this position based on, exactly? On objective knowledge and the mandate of an enlightened population, or on the particular interests of those who have the means to afford scientific lies? The same ones who, by the way, fund election campaigns with hundreds of millions of dollars.

PS: The day before yesterday, a candidate for the Democratic primary presented an ambitious program for the climate, proposing in particular to introduce a carbon tax and massively develop solar energy. His name: Bernie Sanders. Unlike its competitors, it only accepts small checks from individuals to finance its campaign. $30 on average. The price of independence.