User:Alextm21/sandbox

=The Tobacco Industry's Impact on Public Policy = Given the nature of science and scientific studies, there is no such thing as a 100% certainty that X causes. Even when there is a nearly a 100% certainty, those minuscule percentages still leave room for others to release propaganda that supports their own theory. Major Tobacco companies took this idea and ran with it in the 20th century. Using highly prestigious scientists in combination with pseudoscience and other scientists interested in monetary gain, the tobacco industry created a nationwide belief that tobacco was not linked to illness. The scientists who worked to disprove the science behind the tobacco-cancer linkage were the same scientists who spoke on multitudes of other issues. These scientists fought the scientific evidence of the time, using strategies outlined in Bad Science: A Resource Book.

The "Tobacco Strategy," a term coined during the era of big Tobacco industry and prolific policy changes, is the strategy used by politicians, companies, and others that were financially invested in the Tobacco industry to create doubt and confusion over the scientific findings linking tobacco to cancer. This strategy uses diversion tactics to create doubt surrounding hard scientific facts in order to block or drive policy changes. It is based in the idea that creating doubt buys industry or any other beneficiary more time to continue pursuing harmful actions without consequence. It has has specifically been used to drive policy changes, public opinion, and governmental agency decisions regarding climate change since the 1980's.

The continuing parallels between the “Tobacco Strategy,” previous climate change policy, and the current administration’s environmental policies are becoming more clear with regards to heads of agency nominations, E.P.A policy, and public opinion regarding climate change. Furthermore, this idea of "engineering science" has churned its way to numerous other industries and countries as a weapon to fight off liability. It has been seen in Finland as a model for tobacco companies to fight for their own political agenda. It can also be found in more obscure industries such as the oil and even food industry. The model of doubt created has served as a way for corporations to fight off indicting accusations.

Doubt in institution
The tobacco industry aimed to create doubt throughout the public. In a paper by Fred Singer and others, they examine the methods of science used by the EPA, and bring up the idea that this science has a political agenda which could lead to opening a " Pandora's box" if this trend continues. Furthermore, they also pose that if we allow the government to control all the dangers in our life, then we start down a path where the government can control everything about our lives. Singer's strategy of creating doubt in the institution hinges on the idea that the studies done by the government are not only potentially inaccurate, but are done with a political agenda that has led to job losses and losses of personal freedoms. They hoped that if the tobacco industry could create enough doubt in the process and results that the government was using, then the sales of tobacco would not take a hit with all of the negative attention. In 1999, the United States Department of Justice sued several major tobacco companies claiming their actions were fraudulent and illegal. Their suit included reimbursement of tobacco related medical expenses. See United States v. Philip Morris. This lawsuit is simply one of the many national battles waged by both sides attempting to indict the other for its data and to validate their own.

Creating internal science
Along with creating doubt in the national community about the validity of science done by the government and other parties linking tobacco to cancer, the tobacco industry itself ran their own studies. With these studies, they hoped to create a public image of pro activeness to prove to the public they were actively looking to improve their product, while simultaneously searching for ways to find results that would deem other studies inconclusive. There are over 20 public health reports listed under tobacco industry manipulation of research. These reports, some dating up to 2003, all converge on the greater idea that there is a conflict between the truth of the tobacco industry and what the truth may be falsified to be by other parties with other interests. Historically, the tobacco industry maintained a stance that it is simply not possible to conclusively determine that cancer is caused by cigarettes. They also argued nicotine is not addictive and they in no way targeted underage children in their advertising campaign. It can be argued that their attempts were effective due to the large portion of the population still using tobacco products. On the other hand, tobacco consumption has also declined over the decades as reported by the CDC.

Think Tanks & Coalitions
Another strategy used has been the creation/funding of think tanks, coalitions, institutes, and other such organizations by the industries they are doing research on or consulting about. These organizations' claims and research were the heart of arguments used by big industry to shape public policy and regulations of their respective industries. Often times the research conducted was used as evidence for changing regulations, and "experts" from these organizations were called to make testimony, as seemingly independent entities to the public. A few examples are outlined below.

George C. Marshall Institute
The George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank, has been most notably known for supporting climate change skepticism and pushing changes in policy and regulations regarding climate change. Taking the position that climate change regulation is restrictive and could have negative economic repercussions, this institute uses its "examination" of the science behind climate change to discredit the idea of man-made climate change. The free-market viewpoint that the institute has adopted has led it to "[make] arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank," according to a former executive. The think tank was funded by Exxon-Mobil, a major oil corporation, until 2008. Regulations of the oil industry have been a large part of Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory actions in their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are associated with climate change. The Institute also published a pamphlet titled: The Cocktail Conversation Guide to Global Warming. This pamphlet includes language such as: "so-called “consensus,'" "some scientists have simply assumed that human beings now control the climate system," and "Yes, but how much is uncertain." These are all in reference to climate change and the effects humans have on climate change.

Citizens for Fire Safety
Citizens for Fire Safety, a former industry front group for makers of fire retardants, was funded by the three largest manufacturers of fire retardants. One of the most influential members of this group, David Heimbach, was instrumental in testifying on behalf of the chemical industry. He served as their "medical spokesperson," using his position as a world-renowned burn surgeon to tell lawmakers [now proven false] testimonies about burned babies. He was successful in blocking legislation that would ban a certain chemical in children's items, but later voluntarily gave up his license after an investigation was started into his practices. Similar to other think tanks, Heimbach is just one example of a seemingly independent expert who was being paid by the industry he was testifying for. In 2012 the Chicago Tribune published their investigation "Playing With Fire," which delved into the fire retardant industry, Heimbach as a paid spokesperson, and Citizens for Fire Safety as a front group for the industry. Shortly after this publication, the manufacturers of flame retardants removed their backing of Citizens for Fire Safety.

Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute, another conservative think tank, has worked on issues ranging from tobacco policy to climate change. In the late 20th century, the think tank worked to deny the effects of second hand smoking in order to prevent smoking bans. More recently, they have been one of the leaders in climate change skepticism, leading a movement similar to the George C. Marshall Institute of free-market environmentalism. The Heartland Institute fights policies that would combat climate change, arguing that introducing these regulations would be damaging to the economy.

Cooler Heads Coalition
The Cooler Heads Coalition, headed by Myron Ebell (see key people), is a group created by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for which Ebell is also a policy advisor. This Coalition has consistently supported the claim that climate change is hoax, stating that studies by NASA were falsified and supporting investigations into whether climate scientists were falsifying data. Among the members of the Coalition include The Heartland Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, and various other conservative think tanks. Articles by newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New Yorker have cited this Coalition as being "in the vanguard of efforts to cast doubt on the gravity of climate change and thwart government efforts to address it." This group has been a strong proponent of climate change denial and works through their website, blog, and e-newsletter to propagate their claims. The Coalition lobbies the U.S. Government to not enact policies that would address climate change, among them including ones that limit CO2 emissions. The group has been endorsed by the Trump Administration, with the Coalition's head serving as the head of the E.P.A. transition team.

Hill and Knowlton
In 1953, it was publicly announced that smoking was related to cancer. The tobacco industry proceeded to hire Hill and Knowlton, a public relations consulting group, that specialized in representing big industry and manufacturers. This group has been involved in a multitude of controversies, from asbestos, to tobacco, to human rights violations. The tobacco industry, after conducting years of research indicating that smoking is related to cancer, hired Hill and Knowlton to shine any research in a favorable light rather than a negative one. Relating to this tobacco controversy, Hill and Knowlton was responsible for propagating one of the most used strategies today - that you can not deny something, but you can cast doubt. That doubt, in return, is what is used to influence lawmakers and legislation. The strategy and documents outlining this strategy, that this consulting group created and successfully used, has now been used by other industries worried about regulations.

Internal Tobacco Industry documents
The first Internal Tobacco Industry Documents were leaked by anonymously from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation in 1994. The next set of documents were garnered from the depository created from the Minnesota Case Against the Tobacco Companies. The last of the documents were released in the late 1990's as a part of the Master Settlement Agreement as public record. These documents showed that the tobacco industry knew that tobacco was both addictive and caused cancer in the 1960's, but still did not make these findings public. The largest tobacco companies were found to be in violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) act, misleading the public about the dangers of tobacco for decades. Additionally, in 1994 heads of these major tobacco corporations swore under oath that tobacco was not addictive, even though they were aware that it was addictive since the 1960's.

Oil Industry
See above - George C. Marshall Institute

Exxon Mobil, in 2015, was issued a subpoena for documents associated with climate change and information the corporation divulged to both the public and its shareholders since 1977. In a review conducted at Harvard University, authors Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes found that Exxon Mobil misled the public about climate change, and specifically human-caused climate change. Though over 80% of internal documents and papers said man-made climate change is real, only a fraction of external documents said so. The other 81% of external documents cast doubt over the entire situation.

It was also found that both the tobacco and oil industries hired Hill and Knowlton to handle their public relations. Additionally, the same mathematician who spoke on behalf of the tobacco industry, Theodor Sterling, also conducted research for the Ethyl Corporation. This corporation was created by General Motors and Standard Oil. The same researchers, think tanks, and strategies used by the tobacco industry were also used by the oil industry.

Similarities between the Tobacco and Oil Industries
Hill and Knowlton Inc. was hired for public outreach by the oil industry. This is the same New York firm which had strong ties to the tobacco industry throughout the past decades. In 1946, many oil companies formed their own committee which was famously known as the "Smoke and Fumes committee" with the intention of conducting their own research. This is a similar occurrence to the tobacco industry which conducted and released its own industry research. Preliminary evidence for climate change has come as early as the 1950's. In 1968, the Stanford Research center famously released the Robinson Report. This was one of the first studies on air pollution at the time. The paper quoted, "If CO2 levels continue to rise at present rates, it is likely that noticeable increases in temperature could occur," Robinson had a follow up study which stated, “If there were a long term and significant increase in the pollutant content of the atmosphere either of particles or of carbon dioxide, the potential damage to the global environment could be severe.” There were Exxon scientists and officials who began realizing atmospheric change due to increased levels of CO2. Numerous more studies have repeated these findings. Yet, In a November 1996 Press Conference, Exxon CEO Leo Raymond was quoted, “Scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect the global climate,” Should taxes be placed on pollution, corporations such as Exxon could potentially take a large hit.

Climate Change
These tactics employed by the tobacco and oil industries are very similar to many of the tactics used by proponents against climate change. Both contexts involve products (tobacco and fossil-fuels) which were originally though of as harmless substances, but as science continues to discover, these products are now being understood to pose significant risks to not only those in direct contact with the product, but the entire public. The other similarities between these two industries include well-documented campaigns of denial in the face of mounting scientific evidence in both contexts.

Denial of climate change
While the evidence for climate change increases according to most scientists, there still remains others who believe otherwise. Some of the biggest names in climate change denial are Senator. James Inhofe, the chairman of the senate committee on environment and public works, Marc Morano, executive director of ClimateDepot.com, Fred Singer, founder of Science and environmental policy project, and numerous other influential people. Many of these people have ties with or have received funding from various industries such as coal and oil which would suffer if the world shifted away from these types of energy sources. Additionally, President Trump himself is not a big believer in climate change. He tweeted, "I believe in clean air. Immaculate air. But I don't believe in climate change."

There are various reasons that skeptics argue against climate change. Some agencies have relied on pseudoscience, others claim that the change is not caused by humans, and there are strong efforts from lobbyists to push denial for economical purposes. Books have been written, by people such as Fred Singer comparing climate change to other phenomena where data has been missing. Institutes such as the Heartland institute have sent out over $2 million in books to science teachers in elementary schools and universities. Tesla has a website listing a hundred facts why climate change is not man-made. Some of these facts include: "The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood," "The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago," and "There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes." While no science can confirm climate change and its linkage to man, 97% of scientists agree that climate change is in fact happening. Large oil companies such as American Petroleum Institute, Exxonmobile, and Shell spend over $100 million annually to obstruct climate change activities. It is estimated that the entire industry may spend in excess of $500 million. These strategies of lobbying against evidence, spreading a narrative not based necessarily on science, and arguing that the science is inconclusive are parallel to the ones implemented by professionals in the tobacco industry in an attempt to re-frame the issue.

Current use of Strategies
In the current administration, the heads of agencies such as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, are more often than not former heads of big industry, and CEO's of large companies. In addition to having heads of agencies shaping public policy and opinion, Trump's former chief strategist, Steve Bannon has used his role as executive chair of Breitbart News, former Chief Executive for the Trump campaign, and former Chief Strategist to circulate his views throughout mainstream media. Two of the major stories run by Breitbart under Bannon are titled: "Climate Change: The Greatest-Ever Conspiracy Against The Taxpayer," published in March of 2016 and "Climate Change: The Hoax That Costs Us $4 Billion a Day," published in April of 2015. Both of these stories have been widely circulated through Breitbart viewers, and now through mainstream media as the administration's climate change policies are coming to fruition.

The Trump administration has already begun to pursue a multitude of policy changes associated with climate change issues, including allowing increased coal mining on public land, creating measures that make it harder to track and regulate hazardous chemicals , relaxing federal environmental regulations , removing the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, and removing or changing climate change language from governmental agency sites. These issues not only span environmental concerns, but also public health ones.

Fred Singer
See above - Doubt in Institution

Fred Singer, a physicist by training, is known for his public views on smoking and climate change. He denied both the effect of smoking and climate change. He has been involved in heated public debates over both topics, stating that there is no clear link between lung cancer and smoking and opposing the scientific consensus on climate change. The CBC Fifth Estate documentary (2006), "The Denial Machine," established the link between these two veins of work, showing that Singer has served as a proponent to industry in both debates.

Frederick Seitz
Fred Seitz, another physicist by training, was the founder of the George C. Marshall Institute (see above). This Institute both consulted with the Tobacco Industry and has been a leader in the denial of climate change. Seitz himself was one of the leaders in the Oregon Petition, which said that greenhouse gas were not responsible for global warming. The National Academy of Sciences, for which Seitz was a former President, stated that the petition “was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists... The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.” The paper that the creators of the petition used to support their views was non-peer reviewed and published in a journal known for publishing discredited views.

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon, the chief executive of Breitbart News, an extremely conservative website, served as the campaign CEO for Trump followed by serving as the White House Chief Strategist during the first seven months of the Trump Administration. Breitbart News has been known for running falsified stories, conspiracy theories, and many of the journalists/reports have been called racist and misogynistic. The position of White House Chief Strategist was created in January 2017, and Steve Bannon was the first person to serve in this position. He was responsible for helping to implement the administration's agenda as well as advising the President alongside the Chief of Staff. Prior to working for the Trump Administration, Steve Bannon was executive chair of Breitbart when these two stories ran on the website: "Climate change: the Hoax that Costs Us $4 Billion a Day," and "Climate Change: The Greatest-Ever Conspiracy Against The Taxpayer." In August 2017, Steve Bannon was forced out of his position as Chief Strategist, and returned to Breitbart News. After his resignation, he was praised by Trump in a tweet: "Steve Bannon will be a tough and smart new voice at @BreitbartNews...maybe even better than ever before. Fake News needs the competition!"

Myron Ebell
Myron Ebell, head of Cooler Heads Coalition and director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at a liberterian advocacy group in D.C., served as the head of the Trump E.P.A. transition team. He has been described as a climate change denialist and says the Cooler Heads Coalition is a group that is "focused on dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis." During his time with the Trump team, he was still involved with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has ties with the coal industry, an industry that has been under regulation by the E.P.A. Known for being a vocal opposer of climate change and E.P.A. policies, he wrote a blog for his organization saying, "There is serious scientific debate about the magnitude, rate, and potential impacts of global warming, and the policies appropriate to address it. And, I believe that we should pursue energy policies based on the scientifically-supported view that abundant energy makes the world safer and the environment more livable, as well as the humanitarian view that affordable energy should be accessible to those who need it most, particularly the most vulnerable among us." Through his work, he has made continued use of the "Tobacco Strategy," shedding doubt on the idea of climate change.

Scott Pruitt
Scott Pruitt is the current administrator of the E.P.A for the Trump administration. In an ironic statement he claims in a National Review piece that, “global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming.” Critics of Pruitt have made claim that someone who rejects climate change is not fit to run the Environmental Protection Agency, whose sole purpose is to protect both the environment and associated human health. During his time as the administrator, he has spent most of his meeting time with top executives and lobbyists from the energy industry, General Motors, and other sectors that he is responsible for regulating. Among those in the energy industry, he has met with heads from the Southern Company and the Alliance Resource Partners, both major players in the coal industry. Also noted in the schedule - he has not spoken to any environmental groups or public health officials about the issues the E.P.A handles.