INTRODUCTION:
A
radio investigation: how a New York Foundation funded Michael Shellenberger and
Ted Nordhaus to bash environmentalism, saying it was “dead.” Now the Nathan Cummings Foundation is
defunding environmentalism as we know it.
The
first part of this two part book review/expose ran on Radio Ecoshock on Ocbober
19th, 2007. It featured an
inteview with author Ted Nordhaus, plus a clip from Michael Shellenberger. The authors trashed an Environmental Justice
group in Harlem, called “WE ACT.” We
interviewed the co-founder and Executive Director of WE ACT, the award-winning
Peggy Shehard. There is no
Printed
transcript for that show. You can
download it at:
http://www.ecoshock.net/eschock/ES_071019_Show.mp3 (It is one hour long.)
Now
we go to our main thesis – that a small group – a PR man, a lawyer, and a
pollster, have attacked environmentalism as we know it. They don’t come from a big polluter, but
from a formerly left-leaning New York foundation. Here is the transcript from that show (except for the 8 minute
interview with Dr. John Terborgh).
TRANSCRIPT,
RADIO ECOSHOCK SHOW OCTOBER 26, 2007 (with some links)
"And
it will require that we leave environmentalism behind, as we construct a
postnatural politics." [P. 238]
That's
what Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus write in their new book "Break
Through, From the Death of Environmentalism, to the Politics of
Possibility." The book follows
their infamous essay "The Death of Environmentalism."
In
last week's program, we heard one example of the authors' denunciations of
greens, the case of the Environmental Justice movement.
Now
it is time to investigate: who pays for this attack on environmentalism?
Prepare
for some heavy lifting. We are going
into mysterious places, where hundreds of millions of dollars, try to reshape
society.
But,
let's start with some proposals in the "Break Through" book.
[BE
PREPARED]
First,
like the Boy Scouts, authors Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus say we
should "be prepared."
The
authors created a proposal called "Global Warming Preparedness." They got funding for it from Peter Teague,
of the Nathan Cummings Foundation. The
money goes to Ted and Michael's "Breakthrough Institute," and another
NCF-funded little think tank called "The Center for American
Progress." Rather than frighten Americans with talk of runaway climate
change, the authors suggest a model based on preparing for severe weather
events.
In
an April 1st, 2006 op ed piece for the New York Times, Ted and Michael call for
a "Global Warming Preparedness Act."
In the bio from their publisher, Houghton Mifflin, Shellenberger takes
some credit for legislation called “Global Warming Preparedness,” introduced
into Congress by Senators John Kerry and Olympia Snowe.
The
authors acknowledge, deep in a footnote, that the idea is not theirs, or even
new. Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke
wrote about climate preparedness, in the July 2000 Atlantic Monthly. Ted and Michael did move some mainstream
environmental groups, out of the single-minded tactic of preventing climate
change. Carl Pope, of the Sierra Club,
for example, says preparedness should now be part of the dialogue.
Larger
groups like Friends of Earth and Greenpeace have not been so quick to go this
route. The Bush White House, and
various apologists for continued use of fossil fuels, want you to believe that
a few dikes, and different building techniques, can hold back the onslaught of
rapid climate change. In reality,
nothing holds back new deserts forming, the semi-permanent flood zones, the new
power class of hurricanes, boiling out of a heated ocean. Witness the recent fires in California, or
drought in the U.S. South East. Do we
really have technology to deal with massive climate change?
Most
major governments are already preparing for climate impacts, to some
degree. Britain seems more advance than
America in this regard.
If
we North Americans keep on dumping endless carbon into the atmosphere, I
propose that all new homes be mobile. We'll tow them with our oversized pickup
trucks, as we migrate toward the open Arctic Sea. Can I get that idea funded?
In
fact, I am feeling inspired by this book, now that I know I won't have to give
up a thing. We don't need carbon
limits, the authors say. New technology,
and new American legislation, and a can-do attitude will save us. I'll join the Dike Building Society (it's
mandatory anyway.) If the coastal
cities go under, just look at all the new economic opportunities for people
living in camps, on the hill-sides. I can adjust my consumer desires to want
portable generators, canned goods, and a trusty gun. We just have to reframe it into something positive.
Or,
we could change the way we live, and drastically reduce greenhouse gases, and
other consumer waste. These authors
don't suggest that.
[BUSH
ENVY]
“the
ecological crisis will replace the reductionist question 'What must we do to
save the environment?' with 'What new environments can we imagine and
create?'“ [P239]
I
know I'll enjoy the new Nature, that we're making.
We
don't need to be reality -based, anymore, the authors tell us. Forget all that reality stuff. They quote an unnamed Senior Bushite saying
"'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
(p 241)
And
look how well that is turning out, with Katrina, or Iraq.
This
isn't the only case of Bush envy for Shellenberger. He's onboard all the way with Bush's hydrogen future, although
many energy experts and greens criticize hydrogen
as
unworkable, or at least, a very long time away. In an article titled "H2 Cars Biz", October 1, 2003,
found at the Apollo Alliance archive, we read:
"The
Apollo Alliance has created a specific action plan to realize the vision. The
plan includes investment in hydrogen powered cars....According to Mr.
Shellenberger, 'The timing is right. With U.S. President Bush’s announcement of
major investments into hydrogen and fuel cell technologies...'
Both
Greens and some energy experts called Bush's hydrogen announcement a way to
stall real action in the near-term, in time to avert catastrophic climate
change.
Dr.
Joseph Romm is the author of "The Hype About Hydrogen." Romm was the acting assistant secretary of
energy, specializing in renewable energy, during the Clinton Administration.
Dr. Romm has catalogued the queer alliance between these
"breakthrough" proposals by Shellenberger and Nordhaus, and the Bush
climate plan. Find that critique on
Romm's blog, at climateprogress.org.
Like
Bush, Shellenberger and Nordhaus say we don't need to limit carbon. At least that's the impression many readers
get from this book. We should just wait
for new break through technologies, like hydrogen or fusion, to save us. As Romm points out, while some energy policy
experts agree with our authors, the majority do not. As a person who ran the government's energy research program,
Romm says with authority: new energy tech is very rare, and unlikely to appear
any time soon. We already have enough alternative technologies, like wind,
solar, geothermal and tidal power, if applied, to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions tremendously. Romm says
pollution limits, now, are far more important than a bushel of research and
development money, thrown into a search for new energy technology. Even if found, it would take decades to
implement. We don't have the time. The climate window is closing.
The
Break Through book suggests that technologies to replace our energy system do
not exist. I will quote Joseph Romm
here:
"This
is the Bush Administration’s central argument. If the fate of the planet rests
on non-existent technology, we are in big, big trouble — because the thing
about nonexistent technology, like fusion, is that it tends to stay
non-existent, or like hydrogen cars, just has too many technical and
infrastructure barriers to overcome... Fortunately, the technology to combat
warming does exist, as I argue in my book at length, (see also the
“stabilization wedges” work from Princeton)."
[http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/03/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-ii-breaking-the-technology-breakthrough-myth/]
Romm’s new book is "Hell and High Water -
Global Warming, the Solutions and Politics, and What You Should Do." In my opinion, this is a better book, with
better research, from an experienced expert.
Shellenberger
and Nordhaus fill pages with admiration for Republican strategy, and their
fundamentalist friends. All through
their book, we find line after line bashing environmentalists. It reminds me of Rush Limbaugh, in his early
1990's television days
The
Exxon-Funded anti-enviro website "The Heartland Institute" certainly
loves this "Break Through" book.
They link to it all over the place.
See? Environmentalism was wrong
all along - even the Lefties admit it!
Are
the previously progressive Cummings Family, really on board with becoming more
like Bush? Is this the new Democratic
Party - where we sound like Bush, to get his voters? Where the only meaning of Nature is what we humans dole out? These authors claim humans will just create
not just one new Nature, but many, all suited to us. They find traffic jams are just as natural, and awe-inspiring, as
the towering redwood forests. That is
what we find in this book.
I'd
call it hubris, but then, fantastically, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus
explain that hubris is a good thing.
Webster's
Dictionary defines hubris as "exaggerated pride or self-confidence, often
resulting in retribution."
But
let’s look on the bright side of hubris.
The authors tell us that arrogance is "positive and creative."
[p272] Just what humans need, more
hubris.
Shellenberger
and Nordhaus write "The crises we face demand not that we wake up to
reality, but rather that we dream differently... Whether we like it or not, humans have become the meaning of the
earth."
To
me, it reads like PNAC, the Project for a New American Century, written over
the face of the physical and living world.
Humans uber alles, we shall overcome the world (p.273) - just like the
Dinosaurs, I suppose.
Can
science even duplicate the biotic contents of our own gut? Are humans ready to replace the product of
billions of years of evolution? We
can't straighten out Iraq, but we can make a new nature, after we've wrecked
the old one? Ooops, too negative there,
ummm, after we've move into a post-natural world?
[THE
AUDIENCE]
Who
reads this book? We get a clue in this
howler sentence: [p.249]
"Today's
common man, with his pension and retirement accounts, more likely than not,
owns the means of production - an ironic fulfillment of Marx's prophecy."
"The
common man"? Women hardly make an appearance in this book, other than in
the endnotes, for gratitude.
Even
so, what about the millions of Americans who can't even dream of "pension
and retirement accounts".
According to news reports, the former Middle Class is eating through
their savings, in consumer credit card binges, or colossal medical bills, as
their property values decline.
The
"common man" owns the factories?
Don't make me laugh. According
to the Financial Times, December 5th, 2006: "the richest two per cent of
adults own more than 50 per cent of the world’s assets, while the poorest half,
hold only 1 per cent of wealth."
[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/41470ec0-845b-11db-87e0-0000779e2340.html]
In
my opinion, the whole tone of this book is for American insiders, the crowd who
flit between Washington, New York, and Hollywood. To me, it reads like a glorified funding proposal.
The
public book tour organized by the publisher, Houghton Mifflin, is far smaller
than I've seen for their other authors.
Meanwhile, most of the presentations these guys made this summer, were
to foundations. Where the big money is.
[THE
FOUNDATION]
[http://www.marcwordsmith.com/pdfs/1_350_Shellenberger.pdf]
In a blog called Marc Wordsmith, Marc
Polonsky, writes: "Shellenberger describes
himself as [quote]'merely a mouthpiece,' for his distinguished associates, who
include linguist George Lakoff, author and political strategist Joel Rogers,
and former Sierra Club president Adam Werbach, but his accomplishments belie
that humble self assessment."
Well,
Marc, I disagree. Michael Shellenberger
has seldom been accused of humility. I
believe he is telling the truth.
Michael is a Public Relations man.
He speaks for other people, just as he represented Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Pay him money, and he will promote your
message.
Now
we arrive at a key player. That is Mr.
Peter Teague, the Program Director, for Environment/Contemplative Practice, at
the Nathan Cummings Foundation, in New York.
That is the man, and the foundation, who pay the bills, for this broad
attack on environmentalism.
Nathan
Cummings was the enterprising founder of a food empire called Consolidated
Foods. His best-known line was Sara
Lee, the frozen cheese cake people.
When Nathan passed away in 1985, he left hundreds of millions of dollars
to a charitable foundation, to be run by his family, in perpetuity. There were no strict rules about how to use
the money. Nathan's last surviving child just left the Board of Directors of
the Nathan Cummings Foundation, which we will call the NCF. A fourth generation of the Cummings family
has recently joined the Board.
The
wealth of the foundation is growing rapidly.
Worth about $380 million in 2001, the NCF now has over half a billion
dollars. The board is filled with the
Cummings, and their relations. Their
central expression, as I understand it from the Foundation website, is funding
the continuing development of Jewish life, in America, and in Israel. Along with many progressive Jews, the
Cummings family shares the philosophy of "tikkun olam" - meaning a
responsibility to repair the world. In
past decades, the Foundation worked on improving health care, the environment,
and the arts, in addition to Jewish causes.
In
2000, the Cummings Family hired a new President and CEO, Lance E. Lindblom,
from the Ford Foundation. About a year
later, Peter Teague became the new Environmental Director. Teague had worked in Congress, as an
environmental policy advisor, for top Democrats like Congressman Leon Panetta,
Senate candidate Diane Feinstein, and Senator Barbara Boxer. He was also a
spokesperson for the Gay, Lesbian, Transsexual and Bisexual community, as
Executive Director of Horizons Foundation, from 1999 to 2001. Previously, Teague was at the Tides Foundation,
and has been a business lawyer. As far
as I can tell, Peter Teague has never been on the staff of an environmental
group. Does he hold a degree in a
related subject?
Of
course, I attempted to contact Peter Teague for an interview, on many occasions. His secretary phoned back twice, as though
the interview would take place. But it
never did happen, for some reason.
Mr.
Teague's first grant was reportedly to the Berkeley academic George Lakoff,
whom Teague admired. As a linguistics
professor, Lakoff proposed the Democrats could win back power, by
"re-framing" the debate.
According to Wikipedia "Reframing is a technique in
Neuro-linguistic programming, where an undesirable behavior or trait is
conferred a positive intention."
That's not very clear language, is it.
The
standard example of "re-framing," is when the Bush administration
talks about "tax relief," instead of tax cuts for the wealthy. Obviously, in the Bush framing, taxes are an
unfair burden, rather than a way to make society operate fairly.
Professor
Lakoff, author of the best-selling book "Don't Think of an Elephant",
became a hit in Lefty circles, sort of an answer to Frank Luntz, in the
Republican administration.
As
Environmental Director, Peter Teague got the Cummings Foundation to pour
thousands of dollars into George Lakoff's Rockridge Institute. The goal was to re-frame
environmentalism. Teague estimated the
final budget for Lakoff's work would easily exceed $350,000. Other foundations
joined this exercise. They attended conferences, often sponsored or led by the
NCF, to talk about a major re-arrangement of funding.
According
to Amanda Griscom Little, writing in Grist on 29 March 2005, George Lakoff, who
hasn't written much about the environment, seems to have backed off. Another Rockridge Institute staff member ,
Pamela Morgan, prepared a paper. But
Lakoff cancelled his appearance, shortly before a planned conference, in
January of 2005. If there are results
for this expensive project, they haven’t been made public.
Griscom
Little, who interviewed Teague, says Peter Teague paid for the original
"Death of Environmentalism" paper.
Teague
found two environmental insiders willing to take a risk: Shellenberger and
Nordhaus. They wrote a paper damning
environmentalism: "The Death of Environmentalism, Global Warming Politics
in a Post-Environmental World."
Nobody
wants to admit they funded this attack, sprung on the greens at a critical
meeting of environmental grant makers, in late 2004.
In
our interview, Ted Nordhaus denied that anyone paid for the "Death"
essay. He and Michael did it on their
own time.
[clip:
Nordhaus on death essay 36 seconds]
[TRANSCRIPT
FROM RADIO, interview with Ted Nordhaus:]
[Alex:
"Well now, they [the NCF] funded the original paper, and then I
understand that the Foundation has
continued to fund a whole range of new projects, that you and Michael have
created. I don't know, what is the
relationship now between you and Michael and the Apollo Alliance?"
Ted
Nordhaus: "Well, actually, just a correction, they [NCF] did not fund the
original paper. Ah, Michael and I sort
of wrote that on our own time, and for our own reasons. Peter [Teague of NCF] agreed to write the
forward, and sent it out to some folks, but that was not anything that was ever
funded by Nathan Cummings, nor was our book."]
The
New York Times on February 6th, 2005, said of the essay: "It was
underwritten by Peter Teague, the environment director of the Nathan Cummings
Foundation." The Philanthropy News Digest says the Cummings
Foundation paid for it. So did Slate
magazine in April. Nobody acted to correct any of that. The 2005 Cummings Foundation Annual Report
says: [quote] "...'The Death of
Environmentalism,' which NCF helped foster in 2004."
What is the truth? Peter
Teague and the Foundation should set the record straight.
The same Cummings Annual Report for 2005 also reports that
President Lance Lindblom authorized a grant of $100,000, to American Prospect
magazine, for a special issue, on this "Death of Environmentalism"
controversy, [quote] "time[d] to coincide with the 2005 Environmental
Grantmakers Conference." So, the
foundation persists in trying to persuade other grant makers, that
environmentalism has serious problems, or is deceased. At other times, NCF-funded people refer to,
or write supportive articles in, the "American Prospect" magazine,
without disclosing the Foundation's large payments to the magazine, totaling
over $300,000.
[The magazine began covering the non-profit sector in 1999, with a
$225,000 grant from NCF, has been awarded grants over the following years.
e.g.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=global_warming_in_an_age_of_energy_anxiety;
or this quote from the Breakthrough Institute history, which doesn't
mention American Prospect was PAID to write about them:
"One year later they wrote "The Death of
Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World,"
which triggered a national debate in the pages of the New York Times, Grist.org,
the American Prospect, and the Chronicle of Philanthropy about the future of
environmentalism and interest group liberalism."
[http://www.thebreakthrough.org/about.shtml]
Whoever
paid for the "Death" slam against the Greens, Peter Teague wrote the
introduction to the paper, as the Environment Program Director of the NCF.
In
the acknowledgements for the "Death" essay, Shellenberger &
Nordhaus say the paper was based on a series of interviews with, quote,
"many of the country's leading environmental and progressive
leaders."
I
looked up the list of 26 names. One was
the President and CEO of the Nathan Cummings Foundation. Another was the father of one of the
authors. This is not a list of
"the country's leading environmental and progressive leaders" at
all. Yes, top people at the Sierra Club
and the NRDC are there. But we also
find a couple of journalists, one of the Sierra Club interview victims, and
more people funded by the Cummings Foundation, like Bracken Hendricks, and V.
John White. Some of the other people
hardly show up on Google, much less in the national arena.
In
the introduction to their new book, this myth becomes even more grandiose:
"We started by interviewing the environmental leaders and funders who
determine global warming strategy in the United States." [p10] Nobody from RAN, or Greenpeace, - many key
people are missing. Imagine a team of real researchers, spending a couple of
years, actually doing what these authors claim.
But
that's just part of the showmanship that permeates the whole game. A small
group of characters keep appearing, with different impressive
"centers" or "institutions", funded by Teague and NCF. Some of these tiny groups with big names
disappear within a couple of years. The
NCF funds so many different think tanks, and high-sounding groups that echo
each other, it might appear like a larger movement.
The
Apollo Alliance was supposed to be the new model for cross-sector
environmentalism. They got money that
would have gone to green groups in years past.
Among many others, funds went to Nordhaus, through business to the
polling company, Evans/McDonough, where Nordhaus was Vice-President. Shellenberger, Bracken Hendricks, and Adam
Werbach were all involved in the NCF funded Apollo Alliance. After the Death of Environmentalism paper,
Shellenberger and Nordhaus felt unwelcome at the Apollo Alliance, and
left. Apollo hasn't achieved many of
its goals, according to various sources, including our authors. The venture cost at least $750,000, more
probably, millions.
Part
of the Cummings money went to another group, "The Common Assets Defense
Fund," which was, quote, "part of a cluster of grants that made up
'The Apollo Project," as the 2003 Annual Report says. In that year, NCF
gave Common Assets $225,000.
Today,
if you go to the defunct website, www.commonassets.org, you find a short
note. Common Assets Defense Fund has
merged with the Tomales Institute. The
web note gives only an email address to try.
What a lasting legacy - compared with the allegedly "dead"
environmental groups, who slug on, year after year, in cramped offices with old
computers, without NCF. Was this money
well spent?
The
Executive Director of Common Assets was, once again that favorite face, Adam
Werbach, the former young President of the Sierra Club.
Werbach,
who claimed to perform an autopsy on environmentalism in 2004, is among the
last vocal supporters of the new "Death of Environmentalism"
book.
A
former supporter, author Bill McKibben, has written an unfriendly review of
this alleged "Break Through" book, in the October 8, 2007 New York
Review of Books. McKibben was
especially taken aback by the authors’ ideas to bioengineer humans, to
withstand the coming heat. But his main
objection, was that this book GIVES UP trying to control carbon emissions.
Van
Jones, the highly-regarded African American activist, from the Ella Baker
Centre in California, has pulled back from his original support. In the article "The New Face of Environmentalism,
in the East Bay Express, Nov 2nd, 2005, Jones said of the "Death"
essay: "It breaks my heart the way that it was
brought forward." He now calls it "an immoral attack."
Even
Cal U linguistics professor George Lakoff, the original inspiration for the
mission to redefine environmentalism, has been critical of the heavy handed
approach of Shellenberger and Nordhaus. In a cover story for E Magazine, titled
"Trashing the Greens" Jim Motavallia writes: "Many
of the ideas in the 'Death' essay have roots in Lakoff’s work, but he doesn’t
use bombastic language, and he says he urged Shellenberger and Nordhaus not to
call their essay 'The Death of Environmentalism.' His alternative title: 'The
Rebirth of Environmentalism.' Lakoff readily admits, however, that his version
wouldn’t have drawn as much press. 'Shellenberger’s a publicist,' he chuckles.
'Getting press is his job.'"
One
of the few remaining public supporters, is Adam Werbach, a past Cummings
Foundation fundee. Adam Werbach doesn't
have to worry. He's found another job -
working for Wal-Mart. Not as one of
their low paid, no benefits employees, but, rumor has it, at four hundred grand
a year, as an environmental consultant.
He got that job after a network of environment groups, including Shellenberger,
called off their planned international campaign against Wal-Mart. Protest has its rewards. But according to an
article at FastCompany.com, in September 2007, Werbach says many of his old
friends have stopped speaking to him.
Although he is worried about his security, with the Wal-Mart account,
Werbach's private company, Act Now, has gone from 8 staff, to 45.
Another
part of Team Teague is Bracken Hendricks.
After leaving the Apollo funding, Bracken was made a "fellow"
at the Center for American Progress (funded by NCF). He is also a strategic consultant for Ted and Michael's
Breakthrough Institute, funded by NCF.
And
again, as in the book, notice we are talking only about men, on Team
Teague. No women, no balance of gender
in the principle players..
In
early 2003, Michael Shellenberger was also executive director of
"Americans for Energy Freedom" - at ourenergyfreedom.org. Don't bother trying that web address, it's
gone. In early 2004, Shellenberger
announced "February 1 I will change the name of my nonprofit Americans for
Energy Freedom, to the Breakthrough Institute." The 2004 NCF Annual Report announced funding for the Breakthrough
Institute, basically for Michael, and Ted Nordhaus.
In
addition to this grant, Shellenberger and Nordhaus also have a private company,
called American Environics, which gets more money from NCF, mainly for polling
The
Breakthrough Institute, and Shellenberger's private the public relations
company, Lumina Strategies shared the same office address in a plaza, in El
Cerrito, California. That's also the
address where you can donate, by Paypal, to "California Majority."
This "project of the Breakthrough Institute," complete with its own
website, hopes to put Martin Luther King Jr. on the twenty dollar bill, with
your financial support.
From
the same office, Michael Shellenberger registered as a lobbyist for the
Venezuelan government, in the United States.
[PLAYING
WITH DICTATORS]
As
Michael and Ted became disappointed with the Apollo Project, and even while
Peter Teague, or the NCF, was
reportedly paying them to write "Death of Environmentalism", Michael
went to work for the Venezuelan strong man, Hugo Chavez. Having helped defeat a recall in Humboldt County,
California, Shellenberger flew off to help Chavez, with his recall
problems.
Shellenberger's scanty two-page application, to work for the
Venezuela Information Office, is still online. He applied, from his private PR
company Lumina Strategies, on May 19th, 2004, for a six month period, asking
$60,000, plus expenses, and monthly flights to Caracas. Shellenberger proposed to oversee lobbying,
advertising, polling, and Internet activism.
He would speak for the Venezuelan government in the United States, and
organize a tour of editorial boards.
Did
Hugo Chavez use the lefty crowd from Global Exchange, to gain popularity in the
United States, en route to complete control of Venezuela? Chavez took over America's second largest
energy supplier, a tremendous loss to U.S. corporations. He then followed the typical populist
dictator route to power, in South America.
His brother becomes Ambassador to Cuba, his Dad a governor of
something. Chavez brow-beat the
Congress to give him absolute rule by decree.
Chavez is re-writing the constitution to allow him to become president
for life.
[I
realize that Chavez is the first hope for many of the poorest people of
Venezuela, especially the indigenous people so abused by previous
governments. Nor do I weep for the oil
multinationals. However, Hugo Chavez
may be benign, I am not the only person to worry whether he will hold on to
complete power, as Castro did. Even his
admirers are watching the latest developments in that country.]
When
I asked Michael Shellenberger about his role speaking for the Chavez
government, he simply said "I didn't know that was going to
happen." As though this isn't a
vivid pattern in South American politics.
But Shellenberger rode into Venezuela, with little background, or
experience in the country. No
matter. He is a Public Relations man.
Evans/McDonough,
where Ted Nordhaus was still Vice-President, co-incidentally got even more
Venezuelan oil bucks, to run a series of polls, which always showed wild public
support for the Chavez Regime. Was that
you working the polls for Chavez, Ted?
Even
the recently announced Cummings Foundation poll involved Ted's old company man,
Alex Evans, formerly of the polling company Evans/McDonough. Alex Evans stuck with the Venezuelan
contract late into December, 2006, even as Chavez moved against American
companies, and grasped for total power.
Evans/McDonough's poll support, which always showed Chavez in the lead,
was paid for by the state oil company, PDVSA - the company which fired 19,000
employees who refused to support Hugo Chavez, in 2002.
Then
suddenly, in 2007, we find Evan/McDonough has folded up. Now Adam Evans is at EMC Research, in
Seattle. He still gets work from the
Cummings Foundation money.
It
seems to me, that questions about this Venezuelan adventure likely guarantee
that neither Shellenberger or Nordhaus will ever be elected to any national
office in America. The CIA, the State
Department, and the oil companies, have long memories. So do the Greens, for a
different reason - the author's surprise betrayal of their cause, in front of
the foundation funders.
Stranger
still, in the book "Break Through," Shellenberger and Nordhaus attack
one of the world's pre-eminent bird experts, Dr. John Torborgh, for his
favorable comments about a dictator in Peru!
Dr. Torborgh, a member of the National Academy of Science, merely commented on a dictator. Michael Shellenberger [may have] helped make
one.
[-][music
break]
Let's
go to the source.
My
guest now, is Dr. John Terborgh, who opened a research station in the
Peruvian Amazon in 1973. Now, he is a
world-recognized expert on tropical birds and mammals, a Professor of
Environmental Sciences at Duke University, the well-known author of "Where
Have All the Birds Gone?" and "Requiem for Nature."
We'll
break into our chat, going straight to the question of Alberto Fujimori, the
controversial dictator of Peru during the 1990's. But we'll hang around with this eminent scientist a few minutes
longer, to find what Shellenberger and Nordhaus missed about the man.
[part
of Torborgh interview, about 8 minutes, no transcript]
That
was Dr. John Terborgh, speaking from Duke University. I am not endorsing Fujimori, or any dictator. And the aboriginal people of Peru had no
reason to love him. Fujimori is now
charged with murdering a labor leader.
In two week's time, I hope to have a South American activist on this
program, to get a more balanced view.
She tells me Hugo Chavez has been good for the people, and the
environment. Fujimori's troops fired on
her, at a protest.
My
only point is the hypocracy of Michael Shellenberger dumping on a
world-renowned scientist, considering his own role in Venezuelan politics.
[We're
reviewing the book "Break Through" by the "Death of
Environmentalism" authors, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus. That has led to an examination of the Nathan
Cummings Foundation, which supports their attack on environmentalism in
America.]
The
operations of the Environment arm of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the NCF,
can be confusing. Take this press
release from the Cummings Foundation, dated September 20th, 2007. It is nicely timed to promote the “Break
Through” book tour. The headline
is: "New Poll Finds Hurdles,
Opportunity on Global Warming. Failure to Address Energy Anxiety Could Derail
Global Warming Policies"
The
credits in the press release say: "The poll was conducted August 26 -
September 6, by American Environics and EMC Research, for the Nathan Cummings
Foundation, and the Breakthrough Institute."
Well
gosh, a lot of independent groups are involved. Or are they? Neither the
press, nor the reader, is told that American Environics is headed by Michael
and Ted, plus one employee, Jeff Navin, all regularly hired by NCF. The Breakthrough Institute, as we know, is
also Michael and Ted, and has been funded by the Cummings Foundation. EMC Research is Adam Evans’ new incarnation,
as Ted Nordhaus goes back to his old company man, with more NCF polling
business. It's all in-house, the small
crowd, at the Cummings Family table.
That's
just one case, among too many, of how the Foundation has juggled it's various
creations, sometimes without disclosure.
More
seriously, Peter Teague seems to have given up funding the existing
environmental movement.
Here
is part of the picture. In his speech
to the Commonwealth Club, Dec. 8, 2004, Adam Werbach, the ex-Sierra Club
President, related this little story.
He said: "On a blustery day in New York City two years ago, I sat across
the table at a noodle shop from Peter Teague, the director of the Environment
Program at the Nathan Cummings Foundation."
Werbach
continues: "’Peter,’ I said, ‘Environmentalism is dead. There won't be
environmental programs at foundations in five years.’"
According
to Werbach, Peter Teague agreed. And it
was so, at least for one foundation.
The Nathan Cummings Foundation stopped funding most of it's environment
groups within 5 years. There is a
record of a small movement among foundations, spearheaded by Peter Teague and
the NCF, to de-fund environmentalism as we know it. They want a broader, more inclusive movement, which might be
called "progressive," instead.
Environmentalism, these critics say, is "dead."
It's
the long time dream of every oil company and chemical polluter - coming not
from the Right, but from a left-leaning big foundation.
[source:
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/werbach-reprint/
"Is
Environmentalism Dead?
A
speech on where the movement can and should go from here
By
Adam Werbach" republished in Grist.org, 13 Jan 2005 (as delivered to the
Commonwealth Club in December 2004)]
Why
does Peter Teague still list himself as the Environment Program Director, when
environmentalism is dead? Shouldn’t he
be the post-environmental director, or something else?
When
I look at the annual reports up to 2002, I am astounded at the number of good
works the Cummings Foundation funded.
They made dozens, hundreds, of relatively small grants to poorly funded
activists, all over America. Grants
went to campus environment groups, local mass transit initiatives (buses,
trains, bikes), big groups like Environmental Defense, Earth Island Institute,
and Sierra Club, and dozens, if not hundreds, of small environment groups. They funded AlterNet, and even the Bioneers
radio shows that I so enjoy. Their
2001-2002 financial report lists almost 300 different grants to various causes,
including many environmental ones. In 2002, alone, Cummings Foundation awarded
almost $15 million in grants.
If
I spent the next 20 minutes describing all the Green groups the Cummings
Foundation has nourished, even as America turned Right and somewhat mean, you
would be amazed.
Of
course, it is complex handling all those grants, from an administrative point
of view, especially with such a diversity of clients.
Since
Peter Teague has arrived, determined to fold the diversity of greens into other
fields, like health care, the annual Cummings Foundation reports tell the tale.
After
more than a decade of nurturing environmentalism, in the 2005 Annual Report,
following the blow-back from the "Death of Environmentalism" essay,
we find a clear statement of the new plan.
The environment segment begins:
"To create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts;
this is the alchemy that has eluded advocates of environmental sustainability,
and social justice for several decades. Instead, we have stuck to an approach
that produces an ever-growing number of organizations, committed to the work of
social change, issue-by-issue and constituency-by-constituency, that manages,
unfortunately, to be less than the sum of its parts. Environmentalism, far from
being the exception, tends to prove the rule.
The organizations funded by NCF during 2005 are working to
reassess the environmental movement, to make their efforts a broader part of a
cohesive whole."
From that point on, Cummings Foundation mostly funded applications
that were not just environmental. For
example, the environmental programs described for 2005, are full of health care
initiatives as well. As a rule, only
cross-sectoral groups need apply.
By spring 2007, we can see the transition in full. Instead of the hundreds of small grants
awarded, as in the period of 2001, there are only 18 larger grants in the
Spring 2007 Environmental/Contemplative awards list.
Two grants go to other foundations.
At least two more are either for environmental litigation, or to
EarthJustice, which used to be called the Sierra Legal Foundation.
[http://www.nyrag.org/calendar_info2332/calendar_info_show.htm?doc_id=417273]
On November 14, 2006, the Cummings Foundation presented to the New
York Regional Association of Grantmakers, a new poll, done for EarthJustice, by
American Environics - the company run by Shellenberger and Nordhaus. According to the New York Times, July 1st,
2007, American Environics "ran a series of focus groups in April for the
environmental group EarthJustice."
We can see that some of the $300,000 granted to EarthJustice, in
Spring 2007, will likely flow through to Michael Shellenberger and Ted
Nordhaus, as American Environics. The
"bad boys" are not in the published grants, but are still being
funded.
Again, American Environics presented an "Energy
Attitudes" study, by Jeff Nevin, in concert with the Nathan Cummings
Foundation, in the Summer of 2007. This
study showed, "The dramatic increase in media coverage of global warming,
in 2006 and 2007, has not made global warming a high priority for
voters." Voters were more likely
to respond to a fix for high gas prices, or energy independence, this polling
report says.
[http://www.americanenvironics.com/PDF/EnergyAttitudesSummer2007.pdf]
I
am not saying the polling work is not valuable. All I point out, is the Nathan Cummings Foundation's
environmental work, under Peter Teague, has an increased emphasis on legal and
corporate efforts, and polling, instead of what the public perceives as
environmental organizations.
Of
course, the $75,000 award going to the National Environmental Trust does
provide support for smaller environmental organizations.
The
other exceptions appear to be two place-based initiatives for aboriginal
peoples.
The
$150,000 Spring grant to the Carbon Disclosure Project looks like a good
choice. Merrill Lynch is a lead agency
on this project, getting investors, and corporations to demand public
disclosure of their greenhouse gas emissions.
Check it out at www.cdproject.net.
I
cannot presume to summarize the environmental importance of all 18 NCF grants
for early 2007. I hoped program
director Peter Teague would explain it for us.
I'd like to hear from him, to get the positive news from the Nathan
Cummings Foundation.
Meanwhile,
my impression, as an outsider, is that, with some exceptions, the money seems
to be going into a dialogue of the super-wealthy, to lawyers and
pollsters. Very important I'm sure, but
has the NCF cut off it's own feet? The
base. The people who cared enough about
our environment, to work for pitiful wages, or none at all. The many dedicated
people who have organized themselves to worry, to learn, to inform, to network,
to act - dedicating themselves to repairing the living world. Environmentalists.
[REFRAME
THIS]
We
know ocean life is in big trouble.
While 90 percent of the large fish are gone, the seas are filling up
with plastic particles, more plentiful than plankton. Climate change is upon us.
The arctic is melting before our eyes.
Giant storms half-wrecked an American city, which has not
recovered. Fires are burning the
mansions of the rich in California, floods filled the working class basements
in the mid-West, and drought makes watering the yard a crime in the South
East. There is record heat in New York
City.
It's
going to take huge sacrifices, and a wrenching re-arrangement of culture, to
save what's left of our ecosphere, and species. We may not be able to reframe that, as an opportunity, for much
longer. Action is required.
If
people and groups have been afraid to talk about how the Cummings Foundation is
defunding the greens - because they had funding from NCF, or hoped to get some
- forget it. Now is the time to speak
out. From what we have seen so far,
you are unlikely to anything, while Peter Teague is at NCF. He endorses the view that the time of
environmentalism is past. So far,
Teague has the support of his CEO, and the Board - the Cummings family.
I
say: Speak up! Fight back! when a big money foundation attacks the very
principles and heart of a mighty movement, which may still, help save the
remnants of the living Earth.
Meanwhile,
the anti-environmental show is getting tired.
Ted and Michael are looking for new opportunities. Now, out of the blue, they are experts on
Iran, Iraq, and Foreign Policy. It's
the same polling. Like a crystal ball,
polls supposedly reveal everything.
The
Shellenberger and Nordhaus Foreign Policy show, slated for New York Grant
Makers on July 10th, 2007, to be held in the head offices of the Cummings
Foundation, was cancelled, due to lack of interest. Later, a small group was assembled for this presentation. Who can take these guys seriously, as
experts on the Middle East, all of a sudden?
The
author's bios at both Amazon, and Barnes and Noble, describe the authors as
"Senior Fellows" at the Breakthrough Institute. Here is the Wikipedia definition of Senior
Fellow: "A Senior research fellow is an established academic, often a
Professor on sabbatical from another institution." Are Ted and Michael really "senior
fellows?"
You
know, my real complaint with Team Teague, and the Nathan Cummings Foundation,
is not that they chose to try a different course. The family is free to spend as they please. Thanks for the millions you have already
given.
The
Foundation's new environmental program may be doing useful things. I just don't see why the Nathan Cummings
Foundation has to fund anti-environmentalism, green-bashing, to arrive at the
goals we all hope for.
To
me, it looks like NCF funding for activism in communities, which also matters,
has been internalized into a small group of people, trying to operate at the
high levels. Is that a charitable
foundation, or a campaigning organization?
Is the Cummings Foundation asking what is needed, or telling us?
Environmentalists
will never quit, because a small group of men, at a big foundation, say we are
out-moded. Or "Dead." What if the old Abolitionists lost heart,
before slavery was banned? The
anti-slavery crusade failed for decades.
A lot of blood was spilled in the Civil War, before slavery was
ended. Only then, was the Abolitionist
movement over. And the Civil Rights
movement began.
The
environmental movement is very far from over.
Environmentalists will arise, generation after generation, pushing and
leading toward a natural and sustainable reality. Until that day comes, we will
not rest.
There
will be environmentalists, long after all us are really dead. Because we have a long way to go. Together.
The
environmental movement is gaining, not shrinking, much less dying, as we'll
hear in next week's show. Paul Hawken
documented the phenomenal growth of environmentalism and progressives, a
flowering of activism, millions of people working on the problem. Hear all that in his speech to the Long Now
Foundation. It was the end of Paul
Hawken's tour, for his new book "Blessed Unrest."
Beginning
with thousands of environment-related business cards, Hawken ended up
assembling a huge database, to connect concerned people all over the
world. You can find it online at
www.wiserearth.org. That's wiser earth
dot org for global green connections.
And, irony of ironies, this massive online index, of groups you want to
meet and network with, was made possible by a grant, from the Nathan Cummings
Foundation.
People
like you, all over the world, ARE responding.
Join Radio Ecoshock next week, to get inspired, by Blessed Unrest.
This
is Alex Smith, for Radio Ecoshock.
Download this, and all of our past programs, from www.ecoshock.org.