Climate Change

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 11° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Tobacco and oil pay for climate conference

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

The first international conference designed to question the scientific consensus on climate change is being sponsored by a right-wing American think-tank which receives money from the oil industry.

The same group has tried to undermine the link between passive smoking and health problems and has accepted donations from a major tobacco company.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York appears to be a conventional exchange of ideas on the science of global warming. Yet it is organised by the Heartland Institute of Chicago, which has opposed much of the science of climate change and passive smoking.

Exxon, the oil giant, and Philip Morris, the tobacco company, have both donated money to it, although the institute is keeping its recent donations company. It is believed to be the first time that a direct link has emerged between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health.

The Heartland Institute claims no money from energy companies is being used to support the conference. But one of the co-sponsors, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has received funds from Texaco.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Shocking
[info]tentontom wrote:
Friday, 1 May 2009 at 03:17 pm (UTC)
I covered the conference this year and last, and have to say there's definitely a large element there that don't give a monkeys about climate change. There are some genuine sceptics with an honest scientific disregard for prevailing theories (in fact these were the most interesting talks), but the general vibe is very much all mouth and no trousers. I visited the main hall after the conference was over, and it was littered with promotional gifts and dozens of power hungry appliances (inc. high wattage lighting) left unattended and humming. Not really what you'd expect to see from a group that ostensibly cares about the environment.
Wrong, try again.
[info]yourethehoax wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 06:43 am (UTC)
Ah, so we want to play follow the money? In terms of contributions, Exxon contributed many orders of magnitude more ($100 million) to alternative energies that don't contribute to "climate change" to Stanford University. If you want to measure the truth by the contrbutions, the debate is indeed over and it's you that must answer...why are YOU in bed with the oil companies?
confusing
[info]nisiwi wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 10:00 am (UTC)
Throughout this whole climate debate their continues to be many contradictions making this a very contentious and confusing issue indeed. In the gifting market place such as promotional merchandise many of the so called "green" items are no greener than their counterparts due to additional manufacturing processes or chemicals required to break them down. We need some clear direction and more effective lead from the private sector as the government's own leads seems to be as confusing.
Not confusing
[info]fred_online wrote:
Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 10:23 am (UTC)
I don't agree with the post from nisiwi. There's no confusion there, promotional products are bad for the environment. Any kind of scattergun apporach to marketing is mostly waste, by it's nature, the difference is that promotional goods involve actual product being manufactured and distributed, rather than adverts or emailshots where the 'waste' has no impact whatsoever. Having said that, promotional products are an everyday part of business, and aren't going away without a major cultural shift, which won't gain enough momentum to make much of a difference in the next few years. We have to face facts that they're here, so should shift focus on using recycled promotional products or sustainable/biodegradable etc. Most of these are genuinely "less bad" for the environment, but have the added benefit that they provoke thought in the recipient about environmental issues, having the dual benefit that they raise environmental awareness whilst also generating a more impact as a promotional item to the brand that adorns it.
Not confusing
[info]fred_online wrote:
Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 10:32 am (UTC)
I don't agree with the post from nisiwi. There's no confusion there, promotional products are bad for the environment. Any kind of scattergun apporach to marketing is mostly waste, by it's nature, the difference is that promotional goods involve actual product being manufactured and distributed, rather than adverts or emailshots where the 'waste' has no impact whatsoever. Having said that, promotional products are an everyday part of business, and aren't going away without a major cultural shift, which won't gain enough momentum to make much of a difference in the next few years. We have to face facts that they're here, so should shift focus on using recycled promotional products or sustainable/biodegradable etc. Most of these are genuinely "less bad" for the environment, but have the added benefit that they provoke thought in the recipient about environmental issues, having the dual benefit that they raise environmental awareness whilst also generating a more impact as a promotional item to the brand that adorns it.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date