Global Climate Coalition

see also:

• Corporate Front Groups
• Creation of Fake Organizations
• Oil industry involvement with the Bush administration

Global Climate Coalition (GCC)

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was a prominent example of a corporate front group that played a significant role in opposing regulations and international agreements aimed at addressing climate change. The GCC, funded by major fossil fuel companies and trade associations, actively worked to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change and lobbied against policies that would mitigate its effects.

Formation and Funding

• Establishment: The GCC was formed in 1989 by a coalition of businesses and trade associations representing fossil fuel interests, including oil, gas, coal, and auto industries.
• Funding: The coalition was primarily funded by major corporations such as ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and the American Petroleum Institute (API). These entities had a vested interest in preventing regulations that would impact their profitability.

Objectives

• Oppose Climate Change Regulation: The main objective of the GCC was to prevent the adoption of policies and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• Undermine Scientific Consensus: The GCC sought to cast doubt on the scientific consensus regarding the human impact on climate change, thereby stalling regulatory and policy actions.

Tactics and Activities

1. Disseminating Misinformation

   • Description: The GCC spread misleading information about climate science, exaggerating uncertainties and downplaying the risks associated with climate change.
   • Example: Publishing reports and white papers that questioned the validity of climate models and the link between fossil fuel use and global warming.

2. Lobbying Against Climate Policies

   • Description: Engaging in extensive lobbying efforts to influence policymakers and block climate-related legislation.
   • Example: Lobbying against the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, by arguing it would harm the U.S. economy.

3. Public Relations Campaigns

   • Description: Launching PR campaigns to sway public opinion and portray climate change mitigation efforts as economically damaging and scientifically uncertain.
   • Example: Running advertisements and funding think tanks to promote the idea that climate policies would lead to job losses and increased energy costs.

4. Influencing Media and Public Discourse

   • Description: Using media outlets to spread their message and influence public discourse around climate change.
   • Example: Providing talking points to sympathetic journalists and media personalities to amplify their views.

5. Utilizing Third-Party Experts

   • Description: Enlisting and funding scientists and experts who were willing to challenge the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change.
   • Example: Funding research by contrarian scientists and featuring them in GCC publications and events to lend credibility to their claims.

Impact and Legacy

• Policy Influence: The GCC’s efforts were instrumental in delaying the adoption of significant climate policies in the United States during the 1990s and early 2000s.
• Public Perception: The coalition successfully sowed doubt among the public about the reality and seriousness of climate change, contributing to a polarized and contentious debate.
• Disbandment: Facing increasing public scrutiny and the growing acceptance of climate science, the GCC disbanded in 2002. However, its tactics and influence have left a lasting impact on the climate debate.

Recognizing and Countering Similar Front Groups

1. Investigate Funding Sources

   • Transparency: Check if the organization discloses its funding sources. Lack of transparency can indicate a front group.
   • Follow the Money: Research the financial backers of the organization to identify potential conflicts of interest.

2. Analyze Organizational Activities

   • Consistency: Evaluate whether the group’s activities and messaging align with its stated mission. Inconsistencies may indicate ulterior motives.
   • History and Track Record: Investigate the history and track record of the organization, including its founding members and key players.

3. Consult Multiple Sources

   • Cross-Verification: Cross-verify the information provided by the organization with multiple reputable sources to check for accuracy and bias.
   • Independent Reviews: Seek out independent reviews or reports on the organization and its activities.

4. Promote Transparency and Accountability

   • Advocacy: Advocate for laws and regulations that require organizations to disclose their funding sources and affiliations.
   • Public Awareness: Raise public awareness about the existence and tactics of corporate front groups through education and media campaigns.

5. Support Genuine Advocacy

   • Funding: Provide financial and logistical support to genuine grassroots movements and advocacy groups.
   • Amplify Authentic Voices: Use media and social platforms to amplify the voices of real grassroots activists, helping them counteract the influence of front groups.

Conclusion

The Global Climate Coalition serves as a stark example of how corporate front groups can influence public opinion and policy to the detriment of environmental and public health. By understanding the tactics used by such groups and implementing strategies to recognize and counteract them, individuals and societies can protect the integrity of public discourse and ensure that genuine voices are heard. This vigilance is crucial for advancing meaningful action on critical issues like climate change.

Who were the actual people involved with the formation and operation of the GCC?

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was primarily composed of major corporations and trade associations from industries with significant interests in fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and automotive sectors. While specific individuals who were directly involved in the formation and operation of the GCC are not as prominently documented, the organizations and their representatives played critical roles in driving its agenda.

Key Organizations and Representatives Involved in the GCC

1. ExxonMobil

   • Role: One of the most influential members, providing significant funding and strategic direction.
   • Key Figures: While individual names are not always specified, ExxonMobil’s involvement was driven by its senior executives and lobbyists.

2. American Petroleum Institute (API)

   • Role: API served as a central player, leveraging its extensive network within the oil and gas industry.
   • Key Figures: API’s leadership and public affairs teams were integral in coordinating the coalition’s activities.

3. Chevron

   • Role: Another major oil company involved in funding and strategizing within the GCC.
   • Key Figures: Senior executives and public relations officers at Chevron contributed to the coalition’s efforts.

4. BP (British Petroleum)

   • Role: BP participated in funding and shaping the coalition’s public and lobbying campaigns.
   • Key Figures: Executives from BP’s corporate affairs and government relations teams were likely involved.

5. American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA)

   • Role: Representing major auto manufacturers, AAMA played a key role in opposing emissions regulations.
   • Key Figures: Leaders from major automotive companies, such as Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, were influential through AAMA’s involvement.

6. National Coal Association (NCA)

   • Role: NCA represented the interests of the coal industry, opposing regulations that would affect coal production and usage.
   • Key Figures: Executives and lobbyists from major coal companies participated in the coalition’s activities through NCA.

Operational Tactics and Key Players

1. Communications and Public Relations Teams

   • Role: Developing and disseminating the coalition’s messaging, including reports, press releases, and advertisements.
   • Key Figures: PR professionals and communications experts from the member organizations were central to crafting the GCC’s public narratives.

2. Lobbyists

   • Role: Engaging directly with policymakers to influence legislation and regulatory frameworks in favor of the coalition’s goals.
   • Key Figures: Professional lobbyists hired by the GCC and its member companies worked to shape policy debates in Washington, D.C., and other political centers.

3. Scientific and Policy Advisors

   • Role: Providing ostensibly independent expert opinions that aligned with the coalition’s objectives, often challenging mainstream climate science.
   • Key Figures: Scientists and policy analysts, some of whom were financially supported by the GCC or its members, played a role in creating doubt about climate change.

Documented Involvement and Public Disclosure

While individual names are less frequently highlighted in public records, some notable figures associated with GCC activities and its member organizations have been documented:

• Lee Raymond: Then CEO of ExxonMobil, Raymond was a vocal skeptic of climate change and influential in steering ExxonMobil’s support for the GCC.
• William O’Keefe: A prominent figure, O’Keefe served as the Executive Vice President of the American Petroleum Institute and later led the George C. Marshall Institute, another entity involved in climate change skepticism.
• John Shlaes: Serving as the Executive Director of the GCC, Shlaes coordinated the coalition’s activities and public relations efforts.

Conclusion

The Global Climate Coalition was a significant force in the climate change debate during the 1990s, driven by the collective efforts of major fossil fuel companies and trade associations. While specific individuals behind the scenes were often not as prominently named in public disclosures, the organizations and their leadership teams played pivotal roles in shaping the coalition’s strategies and actions. Understanding the institutional dynamics and the roles of these key players helps illuminate the broader tactics employed to influence public opinion and policy on climate change.

Was anyone held accountable?

Accountability and Consequences for the Global Climate Coalition (GCC)

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) played a significant role in delaying climate action and spreading misinformation about climate change. However, direct accountability for those involved in the GCC has been limited. The coalition itself disbanded in 2002, partly due to growing public awareness and increasing pressure from environmental groups and scientific communities. Here’s an overview of the aftermath and accountability issues related to the GCC:

Disbandment and Reasons

1. Increasing Public Scrutiny

   • Growing Awareness: As scientific evidence about climate change became more robust and widely accepted, the public and media began to scrutinize the activities of groups like the GCC more closely.
   • Environmental Advocacy: Environmental organizations intensified their campaigns to expose the deceptive tactics used by the GCC and its member companies.

2. Internal Dissent

   • Member Withdrawal: Several high-profile members, such as BP, Shell, and Ford, withdrew from the GCC in the late 1990s and early 2000s, citing a need to acknowledge and address climate change.
   • Shift in Strategy: These companies started to publicly acknowledge the reality of climate change and began to support more sustainable practices, distancing themselves from the GCC’s denialist stance.

Limited Direct Accountability

1. Lack of Legal Repercussions

   • No Major Lawsuits: There have been no major lawsuits directly holding GCC members or leaders legally accountable for their role in spreading misinformation about climate change.
   • Regulatory Gaps: At the time, there were few legal frameworks or regulations explicitly addressing the dissemination of climate misinformation.

2. Corporate Accountability

   • Public Relations Damage: Companies associated with the GCC faced public relations challenges as their involvement with the coalition became more widely known.
   • Corporate Responsibility Initiatives: Some companies have since engaged in corporate responsibility initiatives, although these actions often appear as efforts to repair their public image rather than direct accountability for past actions.

Efforts Toward Accountability

1. Investigative Journalism and Reports

   • Exposés and Publications: Investigative journalism has played a crucial role in exposing the activities of the GCC. Reports and documentaries have highlighted the coalition’s tactics and the involvement of major corporations.
   • Notable Works: Books like “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway detail the efforts of the GCC and similar groups to undermine climate science.

2. Activism and Advocacy

   • Pressure from Environmental Groups: Organizations like Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and others have continually pushed for greater transparency and accountability for corporate actions related to climate change.
   • Shareholder Activism: Shareholders have increasingly pressured companies to disclose their political lobbying and climate-related activities.

3. Public Apologies and Policy Shifts

   • Corporate Acknowledgements: Some companies have publicly acknowledged their past roles in funding climate denial and have committed to more sustainable practices.
   • Policy Advocacy: There has been a shift among some former GCC members to advocate for climate policies and invest in renewable energy.

Examples of Corporate Responses

1. BP (British Petroleum)

   • Withdrawal and Rebranding: BP withdrew from the GCC in 1996 and has since rebranded itself as a company committed to transitioning to renewable energy.
   • Public Statements: BP has made public statements acknowledging the reality of climate change and the need for action.

2. Shell

   • Sustainability Initiatives: Shell left the GCC in 1998 and has invested significantly in renewable energy projects and sustainability initiatives.
   • Climate Commitments: Shell has set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing its renewable energy portfolio.

3. Ford Motor Company

   • Corporate Responsibility: Ford withdrew from the GCC in 1999 and has since promoted its efforts to develop more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.
   • Environmental Goals: Ford has committed to reducing its carbon footprint and enhancing its sustainability practices.

Conclusion

While the Global Climate Coalition significantly influenced public perception and policy regarding climate change, direct accountability for those involved has been limited. However, the disbandment of the GCC and the subsequent shifts in corporate policies and public acknowledgments by its former members reflect a broader recognition of the need for responsible corporate behavior in addressing climate change. Continued efforts by activists, journalists, and the public remain essential in holding corporations accountable for their roles in climate misinformation and in pushing for transparent and sustainable practices.

There have been no major lawsuits directly holding GCC members or leaders legally accountable for their role in spreading misinformation about climate change. why not?

There are several reasons why there have been no major lawsuits directly holding Global Climate Coalition (GCC) members or leaders legally accountable for their role in spreading misinformation about climate change. These reasons span legal, political, and practical considerations:

1. Legal Framework and Challenges

Lack of Specific Legislation:

• At the time of the GCC’s most active period, there was limited legal framework specifically targeting the dissemination of climate misinformation.
• Laws against misinformation or deceptive practices typically apply more directly to consumer protection, false advertising, and fraud, and not as explicitly to public discourse on scientific matters.

Free Speech Protections:

• In many jurisdictions, including the United States, the First Amendment provides broad protections for free speech, which can include controversial or false statements about scientific topics.
• Proving that speech was intentionally misleading and harmful in a way that overcomes these protections can be difficult.

Proof of Harm and Causation:

• Legal actions require clear evidence of harm and direct causation between the misinformation spread by the GCC and specific damages.
• Establishing a direct link between the GCC’s actions and specific environmental or economic harms is complex and challenging in court.

2. Political and Economic Power

Influence of Corporations:

• The corporations involved in the GCC are among the most powerful and influential in the world, with significant resources to defend against legal challenges.
• These corporations often have extensive legal teams and lobbying power that can influence regulatory and legal environments.

Regulatory Capture:

• The concept of regulatory capture describes situations where regulatory agencies are influenced or controlled by the industries they are supposed to regulate.
• This influence can result in weaker regulations and enforcement mechanisms that would hold corporations accountable.

3. Strategic Withdrawal and Rebranding

Proactive Changes by Corporations:

• Some GCC members proactively withdrew from the coalition and shifted their public stances on climate change.
• By adopting more environmentally friendly policies and rebranding themselves as sustainable, these companies mitigated some of the potential backlash and legal risks.

4. Historical Context and Public Awareness

Evolving Scientific Consensus:

• During the 1990s and early 2000s, the scientific consensus on climate change was still solidifying. Corporations could exploit this uncertainty to argue that their views were part of legitimate scientific debate.
• As the consensus became stronger, public and legal scrutiny increased, but the historical actions of the GCC were harder to challenge retrospectively.

Public Awareness and Activism:

• Greater public awareness and activism on climate issues have grown significantly in recent years. While this has increased pressure on corporations, much of the GCC’s influence occurred before this shift.
• Efforts to hold entities accountable now focus more on future actions and current policies rather than retrospective legal accountability.

5. Complexity of Legal Cases

Complex and Costly Litigation:

• Climate-related legal cases are inherently complex, involving scientific data, projections, and the challenge of linking specific actions to long-term environmental impacts.
• Such cases are costly and time-consuming, requiring significant resources that may be beyond the capacity of many plaintiffs.

Efforts to Address Misinformation

While direct legal accountability for past actions remains limited, there are ongoing efforts to address climate misinformation and hold entities accountable:

• Investigative Journalism: Investigative journalism continues to play a crucial role in exposing the past and present actions of corporations regarding climate misinformation.
• Public and Shareholder Pressure: Increasing pressure from the public and shareholders for greater transparency and accountability is influencing corporate behavior.
• Regulatory Reforms: Advocacy for stronger regulatory frameworks to address environmental misinformation and corporate accountability is ongoing.

Conclusion

The lack of major lawsuits directly holding GCC members accountable for spreading climate misinformation can be attributed to a combination of legal protections, the influence of powerful corporations, strategic corporate changes, historical context, and the complexity of legal proceedings. However, continued efforts by journalists, activists, and policymakers aim to ensure greater accountability and transparency in the future.

Let’s pretend we live in an alternate reality where 10-20 specific people were held legally accountable. It sounds like John Shlaes probably would have made the list. Who else?

In an alternate reality where specific individuals were held legally accountable for their roles in the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) and the dissemination of climate misinformation, the list would likely include key executives, lobbyists, and public relations figures from the organizations that played significant roles in the coalition. Here are some individuals who would potentially be on that list:

Key Figures Potentially Held Accountable

1. John Shlaes

   • Role: Executive Director of the GCC
   • Responsibility: Coordinating the coalition’s activities, public relations, and lobbying efforts.

2. Lee Raymond

   • Role: CEO of ExxonMobil
   • Responsibility: Strongly opposed climate regulations and actively promoted skepticism about climate science.

3. William O’Keefe

   • Role: Executive Vice President of the American Petroleum Institute (API), President of the George C. Marshall Institute
   • Responsibility: Influential in shaping the coalition’s strategies and public messaging against climate action.

4. Rex Tillerson

   • Role: Senior Executive at ExxonMobil during the GCC’s active years, later CEO
   • Responsibility: Continued ExxonMobil’s stance on climate change and the company’s involvement in the coalition.

5. Frank Luntz

   • Role: Political consultant and pollster
   • Responsibility: Advised on communication strategies to cast doubt on climate change and delay regulatory action.

6. Phil Cooney

   • Role: Climate team leader at the American Petroleum Institute, later Chief of Staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality
   • Responsibility: Known for editing government climate reports to downplay the scientific consensus on climate change.

7. Tom Hockin

   • Role: Executive at Imperial Oil, a subsidiary of ExxonMobil
   • Responsibility: Part of the leadership influencing the GCC’s approach and policies.

8. Stephen J. Milloy

   • Role: Lobbyist and founder of JunkScience.com
   • Responsibility: Promoted misinformation about climate science and was linked to funding from GCC-related entities.

9. Richard Lawson

   • Role: President of the National Mining Association
   • Responsibility: Played a significant role in advocating against climate regulations within the GCC framework.

10. Thomas Donohue

    • Role: President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
    • Responsibility: The Chamber, under his leadership, was involved in efforts to oppose climate regulations, aligning with the GCC’s goals.

11. David Koch

    • Role: Executive Vice President of Koch Industries
    • Responsibility: Through Koch Industries and various foundations, funded efforts to dispute climate science and regulations, aligning with GCC’s objectives.

12. James M. Inhofe

    • Role: U.S. Senator known for his climate change denial
    • Responsibility: Although not a formal GCC member, his actions and public statements were in line with the coalition’s goals, potentially making him a key influencer.

13. Myron Ebell

    • Role: Director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
    • Responsibility: Vocal critic of climate science and regulations, linked to efforts funded by GCC member companies.

14. Charles Drevna

    • Role: Executive at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
    • Responsibility: Represented the interests of the petrochemical industry, opposing climate regulations in line with GCC activities.

15. David Ridenour

    • Role: Vice President of the National Center for Public Policy Research
    • Responsibility: Promoted anti-regulation narratives that benefited GCC member companies.

16. Sally C. Pipes

    • Role: President of the Pacific Research Institute
    • Responsibility: The institute received funding from fossil fuel interests and promoted views opposing climate action.

17. Patrick Michaels

    • Role: Climate scientist associated with the Cato Institute
    • Responsibility: Published work and made public statements downplaying the risks of climate change, often funded by fossil fuel interests.

18. Fred Singer

    • Role: Atmospheric physicist, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project
    • Responsibility: Promoted skepticism about climate change science, aligned with GCC objectives.

19. Michael Fumento

    • Role: Journalist and author
    • Responsibility: Published works disputing climate change, receiving support from organizations linked to the GCC.

20. Elizabeth Whelan

    • Role: Founder of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)
    • Responsibility: Led an organization that often opposed environmental regulations, with funding ties to the fossil fuel industry.

Conclusion

In this alternate reality, these individuals would face legal accountability for their roles in disseminating climate misinformation and obstructing regulatory action on climate change. Such accountability would involve investigations, lawsuits, and potential penalties for their contributions to the activities of the Global Climate Coalition and similar entities. This scenario underscores the importance of transparency, ethical conduct, and accountability in addressing and mitigating the impacts of climate change.

let’s do a “where are they now” for this list of people. I want to know what they have been up to in the real world, not this alternate reality.

Certainly! Here’s a “where are they now” update on some of the key figures who were involved with or associated with the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) and related activities in the real world.

1. John Shlaes

• Former Role: Executive Director of the Global Climate Coalition.
• Current Status: John Shlaes passed away in 2002. He had been a significant figure in the GCC until its disbandment.

2. Lee Raymond

• Former Role: CEO of ExxonMobil.
• Current Status: Lee Raymond retired from ExxonMobil in 2005. Since then, he has been involved in various business and advisory roles, including serving on the board of JPMorgan Chase until 2020.

3. William O’Keefe

• Former Role: Executive Vice President of the American Petroleum Institute (API), President of the George C. Marshall Institute.
• Current Status: William O’Keefe continued to be active in energy policy and climate change discussions through his involvement with the George C. Marshall Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

4. Rex Tillerson

• Former Role: Senior Executive at ExxonMobil, later CEO.
• Current Status: Rex Tillerson served as the U.S. Secretary of State from 2017 to 2018 under President Donald Trump. Since leaving government, he has kept a relatively low profile, occasionally commenting on foreign policy and energy issues.

5. Frank Luntz

• Former Role: Political consultant and pollster.
• Current Status: Frank Luntz remains a prominent political consultant and pollster. He has appeared on various media outlets and has worked on messaging and strategy for numerous political campaigns and corporate clients.

6. Phil Cooney

• Former Role: Climate team leader at the American Petroleum Institute, later Chief of Staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
• Current Status: Phil Cooney resigned from the White House Council on Environmental Quality in 2005 after it was revealed he edited government climate reports. Since then, he has largely stayed out of the public eye.

7. Tom Hockin

• Former Role: Executive at Imperial Oil.
• Current Status: Tom Hockin served as a Canadian politician and later in various roles within the financial sector. He has been involved in academic and policy advisory roles.

8. Stephen J. Milloy

• Former Role: Lobbyist and founder of JunkScience.com.
• Current Status: Steve Milloy continues to be active in climate change skepticism and regulatory issues. He runs the website JunkScience.com and has written extensively on environmental and health policies.

9. Richard Lawson

• Former Role: President of the National Mining Association.
• Current Status: Richard Lawson’s current activities are less documented, but he has likely remained involved in energy and mining advocacy.

10. Thomas Donohue

• Former Role: President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
• Current Status: Thomas Donohue stepped down as CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2021. He was influential in advocating for business interests, including opposing various climate regulations.

11. David Koch

• Former Role: Executive Vice President of Koch Industries.
• Current Status: David Koch passed away in 2019. He was known for his extensive philanthropic efforts and continued involvement in political advocacy through the Koch network.

12. James M. Inhofe

• Former Role: U.S. Senator known for his climate change denial.
• Current Status: Jim Inhofe remains a U.S. Senator from Oklahoma and continues to be an outspoken critic of climate change science and policies.

13. Myron Ebell

• Former Role: Director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
• Current Status: Myron Ebell continues to work at CEI and remains active in climate change skepticism and energy policy advocacy.

14. Charles Drevna

• Former Role: Executive at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).
• Current Status: Charles Drevna has retired from his position at AFPM and has since been involved in various consulting and advisory roles in the energy sector.

15. David Ridenour

• Former Role: Vice President of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
• Current Status: David Ridenour continues to be active in conservative policy advocacy and remains involved with the National Center for Public Policy Research.

16. Sally C. Pipes

• Former Role: President of the Pacific Research Institute.
• Current Status: Sally C. Pipes continues to lead the Pacific Research Institute and frequently writes and speaks on health care, economic, and environmental policies.

17. Patrick Michaels

• Former Role: Climate scientist associated with the Cato Institute.
• Current Status: Patrick Michaels continues to be active in climate change skepticism, writing, and speaking on climate science and policy issues.

18. Fred Singer

• Former Role: Atmospheric physicist, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
• Current Status: Fred Singer passed away in 2020. He was a prominent figure in the climate change denial movement until his death.

19. Michael Fumento

• Former Role: Journalist and author.
• Current Status: Michael Fumento continues to write and comment on a variety of topics, including health, science, and environmental issues.

20. Elizabeth Whelan

• Former Role: Founder of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).
• Current Status: Elizabeth Whelan passed away in 2014. She was known for her work in public health and science advocacy.

Conclusion

Many individuals involved with or associated with the Global Climate Coalition have continued their careers in various fields, including energy policy, public relations, political consulting, and advocacy. While some have retired or passed away, others remain active in public discourse, often continuing to influence debates on climate change and related policies.

Phil Cooney resigned from the White House Council on Environmental Quality in 2005 after it was revealed he edited government climate reports. Since then, he has largely stayed out of the public eye.

Phil Cooney: Where is He Now?

Former Role: Chief of Staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; Climate team leader at the American Petroleum Institute (API).

Background

Phil Cooney gained notoriety when it was revealed that he had edited government climate reports to downplay the scientific consensus on climate change while serving in the Bush administration. Before his government role, Cooney worked as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, representing the interests of the oil industry.

Controversy and Resignation

In June 2005, Cooney’s edits to climate change reports became public knowledge through investigative journalism by major outlets like The New York Times. These edits were seen as an attempt to cast doubt on the severity and human causes of climate change, aligning with the interests of the fossil fuel industry.

Cooney resigned from his position at the White House Council on Environmental Quality shortly after the revelations, citing personal reasons. His resignation was seen by many as a direct consequence of the scandal.

Post-Resignation

After leaving the White House, Phil Cooney took a position with ExxonMobil, where he continued to work in a capacity related to public affairs and policy. This move further cemented the perception of his close ties with the fossil fuel industry.

Current Status

Since his resignation and subsequent employment at ExxonMobil, Cooney has largely stayed out of the public eye. There has been little public information about his activities or roles beyond his initial post-government employment.

Summary

Phil Cooney’s involvement in editing climate reports to downplay the seriousness of climate change was a significant scandal that led to his resignation from the White House Council on Environmental Quality. His move to ExxonMobil after leaving the White House highlighted his continued alignment with the interests of the fossil fuel industry. Since then, Cooney has kept a low profile, and there is limited public information about his recent activities.