Originally posted by Juliette on April 12, 2010 9:20 AM
Greenpeace USA has been coming up with some pretty fantastic videos lately, highlighting the links between fossil fuel industry lobbyists and public servants (a lot of them being senators) in the US.
As Greenpeace has been looking at the climate inaction promoted by the Koch brothers lately, they made this little video:
In case you didn't follow the previous episodes, this is part of a matchmaking website helping polluters and "open minded" public servants to find their perfect match. It's a hard life for polluters to know who will best represent their dirty interests in exchange for a bit of dirty campaign money.
The Koch Brothers have more ways to muddy the waters of the climate debate though. They insist that they are part of an "intellectually honest climate debate", which apparently involves funding sham studies and organising astroturf groups.
We've called them out on their practices in an open letter and delivered it to them in person. We look forward to their answer. In the meantime, I can't help but wish all the worst for Charles and Blanche - no offense to Polluter Harmony, but this is one relationship I don't want to see blooming any further.
Here is the text of the letter to Koch:
April 6, 2010
Dear Charles and David Koch,
I am pleased to hear that you received word of our report detailing your company's and foundations' efforts to fund climate denial organizations and think tanks. However, the response from Koch Industries' spokesperson, as printed in the New York Times "Green Inc." blog, does not address key concerns detailed in the report (http://www.greenpeace.org/kochindustries) and indeed prompts further questions, the answers to which I believe your customers and the American people deserve to know.
I hope you will consider these questions and provide a prompt and public response:
* Do you personally deny the scientific consensus on climate change, including the peer reviewed work of thousands of scientists and statements by major scientific academies and associations worldwide, that global warming is principally caused by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels?
* Do you stand by the words, deeds and positions of organizations that you fund (and in some cases founded), such as the Cato Institute and Americans for Prosperity, including their overt and continuing efforts to cast doubt and confusion on climate science? * Do you believe that the Americans for Prosperity "Hot Air Tour"or "Regulation Reality Tour" is an example of the "intellectually honest debate" that you mention in your response to our report or is intended to obstruct the environmental regulatory process? * Could you please provide examples to support the statement: "Koch companies have long supported science-based inquiry and dialogue about climate change"?
* In addition, would you provide examples to support the statements: "We've strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases." And "We have tried to help bring out the facts of the potential effectiveness and costs of policies proposed to deal with climate."
* Given your interest in an "intellectually honest debate", are you willing to participate in an open debate at the National Press Club on your role in funding climate denial organizations and think tanks?
I am sure you will agree that these questions are straightforward and simple to answer. I look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
Kert Davies
Greenpeace Research Director