Information Council on the Environment

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Information Council on the Environment (ICE) was a politically active organization primarily founded and financed by energy companies, whose task it was to dispute the scientific state of research on human-induced global warming . This American front group presented itself to the outside world as independent and made it possible for the companies behind it to deny climate change through it. Their goal was to reinterpret global warming from fact to mere theory while spreading false claims that suggested that global warming had positive effects. The ICE used rhetorical tactics such as cherry-picking data in order to draw misleading conclusions. The main target group were less educated and gullible groups of people.

In the scientific literature, the Information Council on The Environment is judged both as an industry- funded Astroturfing group and as a greenscamming organization for the coal industry. After the intentions of the organization had been leaked to the press and were thus publicly known, the ICE disbanded.

history

The ICE was founded in 1991 by various companies, mainly from the coal and energy supply industries . The National Coal Association , the Western Fuels Association and the Edison Electric Institute , among others, were involved. The ICE was supported by the three scientists Patrick Michaels , Robert Balling and Sherwood Idso , who also contest global warming. Together they started a media campaign aimed at denying man-made global warming.

After the strategy documents of the ICE leaked to the press and a number of unfavorable media coverage had occurred as a result, the ICE was disbanded.

The campaign

As internal documents became public, a comparatively large amount is known about the strategy behind the ICE campaign. This includes the following core issues and measures:

  • Reinterpretation of global warming as theory (not fact) ("Reposition global warming as theory [not fact]")
  • Focus on the target group press and radio for maximum effectiveness ("target print and radio media for maximum effectiveness")
  • Achieve broad participation across the entire electric utility
  • Use of speakers from the scientific community ("use a spokesman from the scientific community")

backgrounds

The ICE campaign was launched in the run-up to the Rio Conference in 1992 . In 1991 the coal association Western Fuels Association , which mainly represented coal producers from Wyoming and Montana , decided to question the scientific state of research on global warming in order to protect its own economic interests. The main argument for this was the claim, which contradicts scientific knowledge, that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not negative for the environment and humanity, but beneficial. It was argued here that more carbon dioxide would lead to a greener earth by increasing the photosynthetic capacity of plants and that the warming is therefore not threatening at all, but rather desirable. At the same time, they recruited scientists so that they questioned the scientific knowledge in several ways in press releases and public testimony. So, in general, they should question global warming, say that even if warming did happen, it would not be a problem, and instead spread the alternative and positive message that the planet was going green. Before the start of these Green Earth campaigns, which also included the activities of the Greening Earth Society , the Western Fuels Organization undertook a large-scale market research program, the aim of which was to find out how best to reshape public opinion on climate change.

The driving force behind the Green Earth campaign was Fred Palmer , who u. a. CEO of the Western Fuels Association, but also sat in various interest groups in the business world and had the firm intention of protecting the coal industry from any state regulation by the government. Among other things, he was active in the Global Climate Coalition , which mainly represented fossil energy companies, in the Center for Energy , which represented coal producers, the National Mining Organization and the Free Market Think Tank Center for the New West . Palmer hired the Washington-based PR organization Bracy, Williams and Co. A total of ten campaign goals were formulated and measures defined how to achieve them. Goal number 1 was to reinterpret global warming from fact to theory. The media campaign should initially start small and finally - after the results from the test markets arrived - encompass the entire US market. Measures were also taken to ensure that the entire US utility industry spoke with one voice and that scientists were available to speak for them.

Test markets

The Western Fuels Association made a budget of $ 510,000 available for the test markets, and other coal companies also participated. Strategies and messages were tested in selected media, after which an opinion research institute examined which messages had the potential to trigger a change in opinion about global warming in the population. Three key objectives of the campaign were defined in the test market offer:

  • Demonstration that a "consumer-based awareness program can positively change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming" ,
  • "To begin to develop a message and strategy for shaping public opinion on a national scale",
  • “To lay the groundwork for a unified national electric industry voice on global warming”.

The campaign was designed to show that public opinion on global warming was malleable and that people's views about the validity of results could be changed.

Feigned independence

A key element of the ICE campaign was the use of seemingly independent organizations and individuals to increase credibility. The industry messages were supposed to be delivered by organizations whose name sounded like an environmental organization and where the public had no idea of ​​any connection to the coal industry. At the beginning of the campaign, the PR strategists decided to use the acronym ICE; What ICE should actually stand for was not determined until later. First, a series of tests was started with test persons who were given different names. In addition to “Information Council for the Environment”, this also included “Informed Citizens for the Environment”, “Intelligent Concern for the Environment” and “Informed Choices for the Environment”. The test series showed that US citizens trusted scientists more than politicians or political activists and that spokesmen for industrial companies were particularly untrustworthy. The Western Fuels Organization then decided to use the name "Information Council for the Environment" because it did not sound like an industry-financed organization and wanted to position the ICE as a "technical" source.

Then the media campaigns began in the test markets, which ended in the spring and summer of 1991. Various messages were placed in newspapers and radio broadcasts. These included phrases such as "If the earth gets warmer, why is Kentucky getting colder?" Or "If the earth gets warmer, why is the frost line moving south?"; Claims that contradicted scientific evidence. In addition, questions were formulated such as “How much are you willing to pay to solve a problem that may not even exist?” At the same time, some press articles from the campaign were provided with information that more information could be obtained via the free telephone hotline, which ultimately resulted in PR -Organization behind the campaign collected a base of around 2000 supporting citizens, with whom they then pretended that this was a grassroots movement from below. Other activities included speaking to newspaper publishers and sending scientists to support the campaign on radio shows and on television.

Results of the market research campaign

The study of the effectiveness of the campaign by market research institutes showed that it was indeed possible to manipulate public opinion with such campaigns, especially when “technical” groups were disseminating “credible facts”. Furthermore, it emerged that different target groups should be addressed differently. For example, "older, less educated men" are susceptible to saying that "the threat [from global warming] is being exaggerated by media outlets trying to increase their audience and influence". Young low-income women, on the other hand, would be “receptive to factual information” and “likely to decrease their support for government [climate protection] legislation if they heard new information”. In addition, many people would be receptive to the claim that the climate issue is more complex than they are told. Ultimately, this meant that it was possible to change public opinion by presenting "alternative scientific claims" to the population.

Scientists as speakers

As one of the key objectives of the campaign was to give the public the impression of an ongoing scientific debate on climate change, the use of scientists as speakers was essential for the ICE campaign. Three scientists in particular acted as spokespeople for the ICE: Patrick J. Michaels , who had long been “climate skeptical” and had connections to the coal industry, the geographer Robert Balling and Sherwood Idso . In May 1991 a letter appeared with Michael's signature, designating the three as the scientific advisory body of the ICE, and sent to all citizens who had asked for more information. In it Michaels explained that climate research was still in its infancy and that it was therefore wrong that higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would cause catastrophic warming. Michaels went on to say that the ICE was created to "promote a better public understanding of global warming and ensure that all Congressional legislation is based on scientific evidence." In addition, the three scientific speakers appeared on radio and television, arguing that no one knew whether global warming was a real problem, and at the same time they were working to portray global warming as something positive.

See also

literature

  • Naomi Oreskes : My facts are better than your facts , in: Peter Howlett, Mary S. Morgan (Eds.), How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge . Cambridge University Press 2011, 136-166, ISBN 978-0-521-19654-3 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Karin Edvardsson Björnberg et al .: Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990-2015 . In: Journal of Cleaner Production . tape 167 , 2017, p. 229-241 , doi : 10.1016 / j.jclepro.2017.08.066 .
  2. ^ William C. Tucker: Deceitful Tongues: Is Climate Change Denial A Crime? In: Ecology Law Quarterly . tape 39 , 2012, p. 831-892, here, p. 846 , doi : 10.15779 / Z38V55M .
  3. ^ David L. Levy, Daniel Egan: A Neo-Gramscian Approach to Corporate Political Strategy: Conflict and Accommodation in the Climate Change Negotiations . In: Journal of Management Studies . tape 40 , no. 4 , 2003, p. 803-829 , doi : 10.1111 / 1467-6486.00361 .
  4. ^ Haydn Washington, John Cook : Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan 2011, p. 75.
  5. ^ A b Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160, p. 150.
  6. ↑ James Hoggan, Richard Littlemore: Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming . Greystone Books 2009, p. 33.
  7. ↑ MyAnna Lahsen: Technocracy, Democracy, and US Climate Politics: The Need for of demarcation . In: Science, Technology, & Human Values . tape 30 , no. 1 , 2005, p. 137-169 , doi : 10.1177 / 0162243904270710 .
  8. ↑ a b c d e Naomi Oreskes : My facts are better than your facts , in: Peter Howlett, Mary S. Morgan (eds.), How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge . Cambridge University Press 2011, 136-166, pp. 137ff.
  9. ↑ Naomi Oreskes : My facts are better than your facts , in: Peter Howlett, Mary S. Morgan (Eds.), How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge . Cambridge University Press 2011, 136-166, p. 140.
  10. ↑ a b Naomi Oreskes : My facts are better than your facts , in: Peter Howlett, Mary S. Morgan (Eds.), How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge . Cambridge University Press 2011, 136-166, p. 142.