Difference between revisions of "Globalisation:Science and Environmental Policy Project"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Controversies)
(→‎Controversies)
Line 104: Line 104:
 
==Controversies==
 
==Controversies==
  
−
The SEPP has become an authoritative voice in the critique of many environmental and health publications beginning with the UN document used as the foundation for the Climate Treaty at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, "we consider the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic." <ref> http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDrevised.html </ref>   
+
The SEPP has become an authoritative voice in the critique of many environmental and health publications beginning with the UN document used as the foundation for the Climate Treaty at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, "we consider the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic." <ref> SEPP [http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDrevised.html SEPP Declarations] SEPP 2006, Accessed 20/04/2010 </ref>   
  
  
−
The project has become particularly critical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, a scientific group that advises the UN. Dr Federick Seitz, SEPP Chairman of the Board of Directors, sparked debate through an article in the Wall Street Journal that attacked the IPPC report, ‘Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change’, highlighting the deletions and changes to the crucial chapter 8 of the report. Although hundreds of scientists had worked on and contributed to the report a few individuals, in Seitz’s view, had misused and distorted the report altering the information provided to policy makers, climate scientists and the public. In 2004 the SEPP published two papers in the Geophysical Research Letters that disproved IPCC arguments surrounding human contribution to global warming.<Ref> http://sepp.org </Ref>
+
The project has become particularly critical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, a scientific group that advises the UN. Dr Federick Seitz, SEPP Chairman of the Board of Directors, sparked debate through an article in the Wall Street Journal that attacked the IPPC report, ‘Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change’, highlighting the deletions and changes to the crucial chapter 8 of the report. Although hundreds of scientists had worked on and contributed to the report a few individuals, in Seitz’s view, had misused and distorted the report altering the information provided to policy makers, climate scientists and the public. In 2004 the SEPP published two papers in the Geophysical Research Letters that disproved IPCC arguments surrounding human contribution to global warming.<Ref> SEPP [http://sepp.org SEPP website] SEPP 2006, Accessed 21/4/10</Ref>
  
  
−
The SEPP established the Leipzig Declaration, 1996,  a public declaration, based on a 1995 conference in Leipzig organised by the SEPP and European Academy for Environmental Affairs, that there is little scientific consensus on global warming. <ref> www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php.id=65 </ref> This declaration attempted to counter the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 described by the SEPP as, “dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective and economically destructive to jobs and standards of living.” <ref> http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDrevised.html </ref> In their view the greatest social pollutant is poverty which would be worsened by environmental regulation restricting energy use which would inhibit economic growth. <ref> http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDrevised.html </ref> The backers of the declaration claim there is no scientific consensus to support global warming an inconvenient truth for “liberals [who] advance policy via social intimidation and declare a consensus, portraying those against it as oddball.” <ref> http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9170061972&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9170061979&cisb=22_T9170061978&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=299488&docNo=12 </ref>  
+
The SEPP established the Leipzig Declaration, 1996,  a public declaration, based on a 1995 conference in Leipzig organised by the SEPP and European Academy for Environmental Affairs, that there is little scientific consensus on global warming. <ref> Exxon Secrets [ www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php.id=65 Exxon Secrets] Exxon Secrets 2010, accessed 14/4/2010 </ref> This declaration attempted to counter the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 described by the SEPP as, “dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective and economically destructive to jobs and standards of living.” <ref> SEPP [http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDrevised.html SEPP Policy] SEPP 2006, Accessed 14/4/2010 </ref> In their view the greatest social pollutant is poverty which would be worsened by environmental regulation restricting energy use which would inhibit economic growth. <ref> SEPP [http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDrevised.html SEPP Declarations] SEPP 2006, Accessed 20/4/10</ref> The backers of the declaration claim there is no scientific consensus to support global warming an inconvenient truth for “liberals [who] advance policy via social intimidation and declare a consensus, portraying those against it as oddball.” <ref> Neocon Express [ http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9170061972&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9170061979&cisb=22_T9170061978&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=299488&docNo=12 Neocon Express] Neocon Express, March 2nd 2007, Accessed 20/4/2010 </ref>  
  
  
−
The Leipzig declaration was signed by 110 scientists <ref> [http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9170061972&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9170061979&cisb=22_T9170061978&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=299488&docNo=1 Alphiah Blog] Alphiah Blog, December 17th 2009 </ref> however under close scrutiny only twenty of the names signed actually have a scientific connection with the study of climate change. <ref> www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php.id=65 </ref>
+
The Leipzig declaration was signed by 110 scientists <ref> [http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9170061972&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9170061979&cisb=22_T9170061978&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=299488&docNo=1 Alphiah Blog] Alphiah Blog, December 17th 2009 </ref> however under close scrutiny only twenty of the names signed actually have a scientific connection with the study of climate change. <ref> Exxon Secrets [www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php.id=65 Exxon Secrets] Exxon Secrets Accessed 14/4/2010 </ref>
  
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>

Revision as of 21:31, 25 April 2010

Background

Founded by atmospheric scientist S Fred Singer in 1990, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, (SEPP), promotes the need for credible science to form the foundation of health and environmental decisions, “its mission was to clarify the diverse problems facing the planet and, where necessary, arrive at effective, cost conscious solutions.”[1] The project believes the cost of overregulated environmental policy will not be borne by corporations rather affect the poorest members of society through the impact of these costs on inflated prices, high service costs, lost jobs and decreased living standards. The project argues levels of environmental regulation in the United States 'strangles' the economy, 'restrains' enterprise and 'stifles' entreprenurialship leading to higher prices, lower sales and subsequent job losses as, "investors are increasingly wary of putting their money in the United States because any serious environmental mishap with which they could be remotely connected might subject them to huge liabilities." [2] The SEPP claims there is no scientific consensus on certain issues, particularly global warming and that science is misused and manipulated by CEO's of large corporations and high level burecats to establish a 'politically correct' science in thier favour. [3]


SEPP does not lobby for individual political candidates or legislation, rather provides scientific information on request. SEPP publishes a weekly bulletin, ‘The Week That Was’, which has 2000 subscribers and is often cited by the media and politicians, providing science based information on a range of issues including; global warming, ozone depletion, chemical risk and clean air standards. Articles and contributions have appeared in journals and newspapers including The Wall Street Journal, Detroit News, The Miami Herald and other media sources including CNN News, Fox News and BBC News. The project’s members also frequently hold public and academic lectures and seminars including those at Oxford University, The University of Michigan, New York University and Washington College. [4]

Key Issues

The key issues tackled by the SEPP are detailed on the projects website. [5]


Climate Change

The SEPP does not accept a scientific conseunsus on climate change exists and is particularly critical of the reliance upon computer models in the promotion of such claims, such as those that underpinned the IPPC CLimate Treaty in 1992. The project claims computer models show more rapid temperature variation than weather satellites and baloons and additionally hold the view that natural fluctuations in temperatures are not all anthropogenic, in fact the human component of greenhouse gas emmissions is only minor.


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The project has a particular stance that clashes with the IPCC, detailed under the controversies section, claiming that an IPPC "report falsely suggested that the science is settled." [6]


Regulatory Excess

The SEPP believes government backed environmental regulation is based on inadequate science and unrealistic costs and benifits. In this view regulation increases costs leading to higher prices, reduced sales, higher unemployment and lower standards of living.


O-zone Depletion

In this arena the SEPP argue environmental pressure groups make exaggerated claims.


Environmental Health Risks

Consideration is given to the natural occurance of substances that cannot be removed by regulation.


Energy and Natural Resources

The SEPP believe energy is intrinsically liked to economic growth, as a result energy and natural resources are, " best managed when property rights can be clearly defined..." and "markets determine the price and allocation of resources." [7]


Misuse and Politicisation of Science

'Scientific evidence based on observed facts is being subordinated to speculative theory and unverified computer models. Scientific debate is being replaced by pressure to conform to a new orthodoxy, reinforced by the control of research funding by governental agencies." [8]


Overall

The SEPP strongly oppose government backed environmental regulation on industry and private enterprise which is potentially threatening to a free market economic system. The project does not accept a scientific consensus exists on issues such as climate change and different ways of measuring this lead to different predictions and levels of evidence. The project justifies its claims by stating the poorest in society would be the most severly affected by environmental regulation that would increase prices, cut jobs and lower living standards.

People

The project is comprised of an international network of scientists working pro bono.

S. Fred Singer is the founder and president of SEPP and former Professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia. A pioneer in the development of rocket and satellite technology Fred Singer received commendation from the White House for his achievements in earth satellites. [9]

Board of Directors

- S. Fred Singer

- Dr Federick Seitz (PHD)

- Charles Gelman

- David Hill (PHD)

Board of Advisors

- Bruce Ames (PHD) Professor of biotechnology and molecular biology at the National Academy of Sciences and recipient of the most prestigious award for cancer research, the GM Cancer Research Foundation Prize, and the highest award in environmental achievement, The Tyler Prize.

- C Bottcher (PHD) director of the Global Institute for Studying Natural Resources in The Hauge

- Tor Ragnar Gerholm, (PHD) Professor of Physics at Stockholm University.

- Michael J Higastberger (PHD) taking a leading role in European nuclear reactor projects

- Henry R Linden (PHD) Professor at Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago

- Sir William Mitchell (PHD) Oxford Universtiy

- William Nierenberg (PHD) former science advisor to NATO and the US State Department

- Michael Saloman (MD) International Centre for Scientific Ecology, Paris.

[10]

Funding

The project started in 1990 and was underwritten by $55000 grant from the Bradley Foundation [11] , a private, independent grant making organisation based in Milwaukee that is, “committed to preserving and defending the tradition of free representative government and private enterprise,” and believes that, “the good society is a free society,” [12] complimenting the SEPP disagreement with government backed environmental regulation on industry and private enterprise.


The project has an annual budget of $100,000 and receives no funding from the Environmental Protection Agency or other federal agencies, [13] The SEPP website claims the project does not receive support from governments or industry rather charitable foundations and individuals, with donations reaching up to $10,000. [14]


Despite this claim Exxon Mobile donated $10000 to SEPP in 1998 under the Exxon Mobile Corporate Giving scheme and a further $10,000 through the Exxon Mobile Foundation in 2000, [15] The SEPP website claims, “for the past three years Exxon has sent a no-strings $10,000 donation. We are happy to get it.” [16] It was also revealed by Ross Gelbspan in his book ‘The Heat Is On’ that Dr Singer consulted for five oil companies, Exxon Mobile, Shell, ARCO, Unocal and Sun Oil although the SEPP deny any funding from these organisations apart from the previously mentioned Exxon donations. [17] David McKnight in The Sydney Morning Herald, 2nd August, 2008, argues Oil companies approach to climate change mirrors that of Tobacco companies in the mid 20th Century that tried to cast doubt on the science which claimed Tobacco was bad for human health rather than try to prove tobacco was harmless. In 2005 Exxon Mobile spent $3million funding 39 groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change.” [18] After a stakeholder revolt Exxon ceased funding to nine climate denying groups. [19]


The most controversial claims with regard to the projects funding is through links to the Unification Church, a right wing group created by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon who believes he is the new messiah, informed by God when he was 16. [20] SEPP deny any claims of financial support from the Unification Church but are open that Singer presented scientific papers at the International Conference on the Unity of Sciences which was underwritten by the Unification Church who subsequently asked for the papers to be published as a book and, “paid a small fee to do so.” [21] However Robert Wright in ‘The New Republic’ 6th November 1995 notes Dr Singers revelation to ABC news in 1994 that SEPP received free office space for a year from a group funded by Moon. [22] In addition Singer often defends his connection to Moon through others selling articles to his magazine ‘The World and I’. Singer however is on the executive board of this magazine. [23]

Controversies

The SEPP has become an authoritative voice in the critique of many environmental and health publications beginning with the UN document used as the foundation for the Climate Treaty at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, "we consider the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic." [24]


The project has become particularly critical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, a scientific group that advises the UN. Dr Federick Seitz, SEPP Chairman of the Board of Directors, sparked debate through an article in the Wall Street Journal that attacked the IPPC report, ‘Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change’, highlighting the deletions and changes to the crucial chapter 8 of the report. Although hundreds of scientists had worked on and contributed to the report a few individuals, in Seitz’s view, had misused and distorted the report altering the information provided to policy makers, climate scientists and the public. In 2004 the SEPP published two papers in the Geophysical Research Letters that disproved IPCC arguments surrounding human contribution to global warming.[25]


The SEPP established the Leipzig Declaration, 1996, a public declaration, based on a 1995 conference in Leipzig organised by the SEPP and European Academy for Environmental Affairs, that there is little scientific consensus on global warming. [26] This declaration attempted to counter the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 described by the SEPP as, “dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective and economically destructive to jobs and standards of living.” [27] In their view the greatest social pollutant is poverty which would be worsened by environmental regulation restricting energy use which would inhibit economic growth. [28] The backers of the declaration claim there is no scientific consensus to support global warming an inconvenient truth for “liberals [who] advance policy via social intimidation and declare a consensus, portraying those against it as oddball.” [29]


The Leipzig declaration was signed by 110 scientists [30] however under close scrutiny only twenty of the names signed actually have a scientific connection with the study of climate change. [31]

Notes

  1. ↑ SEPP Science and Environmental Policy Project Website Accessed 2/2/2010
  2. ↑ SEPP [1] Accessed 4/4/2010
  3. ↑ SEPP [2] accessed 4/4/2010
  4. ↑ SEPP [3] Accessed 2/2/2010
  5. ↑ SEPP Key Issues. Science and Environmental Policy Project (July 2006). Accessed 20/4/2010
  6. ↑ SEPP Key Issues. Science and Environmental Policy Project (July 2006)The IPCC Controversy. Accessed 20/4/2010
  7. ↑ SEPP Key Issues. Science and Environmental Policy Project (July 2006) Energy/ Natural Resources Accessed 20/4/2010
  8. ↑ SEPP Key Issues. Science and Environmental Policy Project (July 2006) Accessed 20/4/2010
  9. ↑ http://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/biosfs.html
  10. ↑ SEPP Board of Directors Science and Environmental Policy Project. Accessed
  11. ↑ http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwrm/gelbspan.html
  12. ↑ www.bradleyfdn.org/default.asp
  13. ↑ http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/gelbspan.html
  14. ↑ http://sepp.org
  15. ↑ www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php.id=65
  16. ↑ http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/gelbspan.html
  17. ↑ http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/gelbspan.html
  18. ↑ http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9169036305&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9169036309&cisb=22_T9169036308&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=172244&docNo=25
  19. ↑ http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9169036305&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9169036309&cisb=22_T9169036308&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=172244&docNo=25
  20. ↑ http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9169213109&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9169213112&cisb=22_T9169213111&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8075&docNo=3
  21. ↑ http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/gelbspan.html
  22. ↑ http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9169213109&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9169213112&cisb=22_T9169213111&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=154997&docNo=1
  23. ↑ http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9169213109&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9169213112&cisb=22_T9169213111&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=154997&docNo=1
  24. ↑ SEPP SEPP Declarations SEPP 2006, Accessed 20/04/2010
  25. ↑ SEPP SEPP website SEPP 2006, Accessed 21/4/10
  26. ↑ Exxon Secrets [ www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php.id=65 Exxon Secrets] Exxon Secrets 2010, accessed 14/4/2010
  27. ↑ SEPP SEPP Policy SEPP 2006, Accessed 14/4/2010
  28. ↑ SEPP SEPP Declarations SEPP 2006, Accessed 20/4/10
  29. ↑ Neocon Express [ http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9170061972&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9170061979&cisb=22_T9170061978&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=299488&docNo=12 Neocon Express] Neocon Express, March 2nd 2007, Accessed 20/4/2010
  30. ↑ Alphiah Blog Alphiah Blog, December 17th 2009
  31. ↑ Exxon Secrets [www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php.id=65 Exxon Secrets] Exxon Secrets Accessed 14/4/2010
Retrieved from "https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Globalisation:Science_and_Environmental_Policy_Project&oldid=117812"