This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

Climate Change Deniers Using Big Tobacco's Playbook?

Joseph Romm's picture
American Progress
  • Member since 2018
  • 1,651 items added with 336,399 views
  • Jun 20, 2013
  • 769 views

A stunning expose by 100 reporters and Environmental Health News underscores how far some companies will go to squelch a scientific review of the impact of their products.

Award-winning reporter Clare Howard, now with the investigative journalism nonprofit, “100Reporters,” has a must-read piece on the length one company went to in order to discredit critics:

To protect profits threatened by a lawsuit over its controversial herbicide atrazine, Syngenta Crop Protection launched an aggressive multi-million dollar campaign that included hiring a detective agency to investigate scientists on a federal advisory panel, looking into the personal life of a judge and commissioning a psychological profile of a leading scientist critical of atrazine.

The Switzerland-based pesticide manufacturer also routinely paid “third-party allies” to appear to be independent supporters, and kept a list of 130 people and groups it could recruit as experts without disclosing ties to the company.

Recently unsealed court documents reveal a corporate strategy to discredit critics and to strip plaintiffs from the class-action case. The company specifically targeted one of atrazine’s fiercest and most outspoken critics, Tyrone Hayes of the University of California, Berkeley, whose research suggests that atrazine feminizes male frogs.

The campaign is spelled out in hundreds of pages of memos, invoices and other documents from Illinois’ Madison County Circuit Court, that were initially sealed as part of a 2004 lawsuit filed by Holiday Shores Sanitary District. The new documents, along with an earlier tranche released in late 2011, open a window on the company’s strategy to defeat a lawsuit that, it maintained, could have effectively ended sales of atrazine in the United States.

Of course, it’s not like there is an infinite supply of anti-science guns for hire. So we see again some of the usual suspects. Climate Progress has written in the past about how “Steve Milloy, Anti-Science Tobacco Apologist, Now Denies Coal Plant Pollution Kills People.”

Howard details his involvement with Atrazine:

Steven Milloy, publisher of junkscience.com and president of Citizens for the Integrity of Science, is also in Syngenta’s Supportive Third Party Stakeholders Database.

In a Dec. 3, 2004, email to Syngenta, Milloy requests a grant of $15,000 for the nonprofit Free Enterprise Education Institute for an atrazine stewardship cost-benefit analysis project.

In a letter dated Aug. 6, 2008, Milloy requests a $25,000 grant for the nonprofit Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research. In an email on that date, he writes, “send the check to me as usual and I’ll take care of it.”

While Op-Eds aim to shape public opinion, economic and cost-benefit analyses were also important, because EPA rulings on pesticide use are based on health, environmental and economic effects.

Junk science, indeed.

      

Joseph Romm's picture
Thank Joseph for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Ivor O'Connor's picture
Ivor O'Connor on Jun 20, 2013

Thanks. And thanks for the reference. I’m starting to keep track of trolls and this helps.

John NIchols's picture
John NIchols on Jun 21, 2013

 Mr Romm,

It is your prerogative to dislike anyone, including those with whom Mr. Milloy works.  Expressing your obvious bias against his donors/benefactors doesn’t persuade thoughtful people his science or logic is flawed.  Using the Saul Alinsky tactic of demonizing your opposition is not science, but it does provide evidence it is not Mr. Milloy who is “anti-science”; it is you.

 

 

Max Kennedy's picture
Max Kennedy on Jun 21, 2013

Anyone who thinks Milloy is a science based proponent has badly flawed logic and is incapable of being swayed by facts.  Mr. Milloy has done a good job of demonising himself and reporting that is evidence of being capable and willing to see through the corporate kleptocracy smoke screen. 

Thank you Mr. Romm for the accurate assessment of reality instead of buying into or being bought out by corporate fantasy.

John NIchols's picture
John NIchols on Jun 21, 2013

Mr. Kennedy,

You can play this game all day.  It goes nowhere. One could just as well ask who pays you, or Mr. Romm..  I won’t because it is irrelevant. As to science. please see Mr. Milloy’s FOIA work on PM 2.5 and the falsification of data by the EPA, using human beings as guinea pigs. These are facts.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »