I have always had my suspicion about climate change sceptics’ real intentions of undermining the climate change science. Now, the hard evidences have come forward, in which point to the fact that my curiosity and suspicion were not just a baseless assumption. I wrote about it in my earlier blog 'Climate Change myths: Common misperceptions and sceptic’s incorrect assertions’, which was posted on 21st January, 2011 .
On the Valentine's day 2012, Heartland Institute - a US based conservative and libertarian public policy think-tank came under the spotlight when a dump of leaked documents were posted online by the climate news website DeSmogBlog. It was a staggering revelation of previously unknown facts. Heartland Institute has been so far at the forefront of efforts to discredit climate change science and now the revelations about its efforts have been proven to be true. Most shocking thing was that a document called ‘2012 Fundraising Plan’ in where was described strategies how to insert doubt on teaching of climate change science particularly to the elementary and secondary school curricula, some documents also confirm on future projects such as a $100,000 campaign to discourage teachers from teaching science.
This is not the end of the stories. Heartland Institute has also received donations from many big corporations which have publicly supported climate change actions. But shamefully these corporations have supported sceptics behind the scenes to push forward corporate agenda to undermine the basics of climate change science. Along with tobacco giants Altria and Reynolds America , and drug firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilley, major corporations have given over $1.1m in the past two years to the institute, and are planning to give another $705,000 this year (The Guardian, Thursday 16 February 2012 ). To me it’s the hypocrisy and double standards at its’ highest level.
I have written numerous times about the importance of social responsibility, social sustainability and the ethical business practices. Business organisations can no longer ignore their social and environmental obligations. Ignoring these values will put any big business organisations vulnerable to competitive threats. Leadership and commitment across the company to reduce negative environmental impacts cannot be based on some shaky beliefs and contradictions. Big corporations who are at the centre of this storm have allowed themselves funding a climate change sceptic institution; in response they probably have destroyed consumers' trust and corporate image which may take years to rebuild. They have shot themselves in the feet.
Many observers may suggest that it’s all now equalised with the revelations about the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK in 2010. In which there were evidences of preventing scientific data from being released, also Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report was mistakenly claimed that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2030. Climate change denials got the perfect ammunition to [re]load their guns then. But, now we cannot perceive this analogy as tit-for-tat or the pressure and the burden have been equalised, therefore business should be as usual.
It’s far from it. These revelations from both sides of the camps have fundamentally changed the way proponents and the opponents of climate change will work in the future. Sceptics have particularly a big job on their hands to convince people in arguing with credible science that would prove that climate change is not happening. Otherwise, we don’t have to wait too long to see climate sceptics are getting the taste of their own medicine again.
No comments:
Post a Comment