by James M. Sheehan
August 19, 1998

The Kyoto global warming treaty may pose a threat to the U.S. economy, but it has spawned a cottage industry based in the nation’s capital, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. A review of Environmental Protection Agency grants shows that the federal government has shelled out well over $30 million in greenhouse pork to environmental advocacy organizations, academic "researchers," state government agencies and foreign governments. This federal largess has created a growing constituency dependent on the success of the U.N. global warming treaty.

"Educating" Legislators. EPA grants are cleverly designed to create the appearance of broad support for its global warming policy agenda. For instance, the agency paid over $1.3 million to Local Environmental Initiatives-USA for the purpose of promoting "local government led, community-wide sustainable development planning." Another half-million went to state government agencies to educate students, alert the general public, and design greenhouse gas reduction strategies. One Minnesota agency even received funding from EPA to "educate" state legislators about the looming threat of a warmer planet.

Numerous groups are paid with taxpayer dollars to carry EPA’s message to the general public. The Climate Institute received $727,000 to educate the public about the evils of fossil fuels. The agency also paid the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security $190,000 to disseminate "objective information" about global warming. The information is disseminated in print and on-line through a magazine called "Global Change," which reproduces data already publicly available in federal government publications and web sites.

The EPA also funds lots of academic "research," but it only grants money for studies likely to support its assumptions and theories about global warming. The World Resources Institute was awarded $150,000 to "show that policy actions that are under active consideration to mitigate global climate change can have immediate beneficial effects." EPA granted Resources for the Future $437,000 to assess "the vulnerability of low income households" to global warming, presupposing the existence of the phenomenon itself.

Various global warming-related research grants totaling $12 million have been made to colleges and universities. These grants paid for assessments of the alleged public health risks of a warmer climate, and funded "workshops" to publicize global warming horrors.

Business Rent Seeking. To generate support for the global warming agenda from business, EPA gave $103,000 to the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, a lobbying group for fluorocarbon manufacturers who expect to benefit from the treaty. The group is a component of the International Climate Change Partnership, comprised of companies that support the global warming theory, such as British Petroleum, Boeing, and General Electric. These companies either seek regulatory protection from smaller firms or have close ties to the government from their dependence on federal subsidies. By cooperating with the Clinton-Gore Administration on global warming, they hope to reap profits at the expense of competing businesses.

Other EPA grants promote a similar form of business rent seeking. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the International Institute for Energy Conservation, and the Climate Institute were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to agitate for energy conservation. U.S. dollars are being used to propagandize American industry about the need for energy conservation, to write "climate change action plans" for Third World countries, and to manage fossil fuel use reduction programs in China. These groups and their affiliates no doubt hope the Kyoto treaty will lead to an avalanche of government-funded energy conservation subsidies in the future.

The federal government’s efforts to enlist support for the Kyoto treaty are not confined within this country’s borders. The EPA has handed out almost $5 million tax dollars to an assortment of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), UN bureaucrats, and Third World regimes. The money is used to prepare greenhouse gas inventories, to develop public awareness of global warming forecasts, and to hold training conferences and other boondoggles for environmental consultants. Additional taxpayer dollars are channeled abroad through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), a fund supervised by the World Bank and the UN. So far, the GEF has funded $675 million in Third World environmental projects over the last six years. Activist groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and Greenpeace are named as the executing agencies or collaborating organizations for $312 million worth of these activities.

Symbiotic Relationship. Legions of Green pressure groups, business lobbyists and tax-exempt "research" institutes have been put on the greenhouse dole. It should surprise no one that these recipients of Washington’s largess are preaching the global warming gospel. EPA’s activities create a symbiotic relationship between power-seeking agency bureaucrats and rent-seeking interest groups, each of which stands to benefit tremendously from the policies they advocate. Unfortunately, the losers in this game are the same taxpayers, consumers, and businesses who are being forced to bankroll it.

EPA Grants to Non-Profit Organizations for Environmental Advocacy

Source: EPA Grants Information and Control System

EPA Grants to States

Source: EPA Grants Information and Control System

EPA Grants to Colleges and Universities

Source: EPA Grants Information and Control System

EPA Grants to Foreign Countries

Source: EPA Grants Information and Control System

NGOs and the World Bank’s Global Environment Facility

(Cumulative)

Source: Global Environment Facility

_______________

James M. Sheehan (jsheehan@cei.org) is deputy director of environmental studies at CEI and is the author of Global Greens: Inside the International Environmental Establishment, a forthcoming book from the Capital Research Center. The accompanying tables were compiled with the assistance of Ilya Shapiro, Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow at CEI.