About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Post reported "think tank's" charge against Gore, omitted its anti-environmental background

March 01, 2007 7:07 pm ET
image

25 Comments

In a March 1 Washington Post article, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) was referred to as "a Nashville-based think tank that advocates 'limited government through policy solutions,' according to its Web site." But the TCPR's agenda apparently goes beyond limiting the size of government. Like other recent reports on the TCPR's attacks on former Vice President Al Gore's purported home energy use, the Post article did not note that TCPR has reportedly joined the "Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change," which claims to have "been established as a response to the many biased and alarmist claims about human-induced climate change, which are being used to justify calls for urgent action by governments."

Furthermore, the Post and other media have not reported on the backgrounds of TCPR's "Staff & Scholars," several of whom have supported anti-environmental causes or received support from anti-environmental groups:

  • According to his biography, TCPR president Jason "Drew" Johnson previously served as an "Institute for Humane Studies Koch Fellow." The Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) describes itself as an "organization that assists undergraduate and graduate students worldwide with an interest in individual liberty." On the issue of climate change, the IHS acknowledges the scientific consensus "that the earth has warmed about a degree Fahrenheit over the past century, and that humans have caused some of that warming." But the organization has also called into question the motives of environmentalists, writing that "the environmental movement sometimes looks less like a band of scrappy rebels, and more like corporate America with its own special interests to tend to."

The IHS is funded by right-wing foundations such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Koch Family Foundations (consisting of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation).

The Koch Family Foundations, in particular, have donated millions of dollars to the IHS. Charles G. Koch, whose biography asserts that he "found[ed] or help[ed] build a number of organizations, including the Institute for Humane Studies [and] the Cato Institute," has since 1967 served as chairman and CEO of Koch Industries, a company with a dismal environmental record. In January 2000, Koch Industries agreed to pay $30 million, "the largest civil fine ever imposed on a company under any federal environmental law to resolve claims related to more than 300 oil spills from its pipelines and oil facilities in six states." The settlement also required Koch to "improve its leak-prevention programs and spend $5 million on environmental projects."

Further, as part of the Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program, Johnson interned at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in 2002. As MSNBC host Keith Olbermann noted on the February 27 edition of Countdown, Johnson worked at "the same American Enterprise Institute that takes money from big oil, cheerleads the war in Iraq, and consistently, and now to pretty consistent laughter, downplays global warming." Indeed, AEI has received nearly $1 million in funding from ExxonMobil in recent years. Moreover, according to The Washington Post, AEI "has been soliciting critiques" of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released in February and "has offered $10,000 to academics willing to contribute to a book on climate-change policy."

  • TCPR scholar Charles Van Eaton also serves as a trustee for the Lincoln Heritage Institute (LHI). The institute's "About LHI" page declares: "We ... cannot stand idly by and allow ... destructive environmental activism ... to become an accepted way of life in America."
  • Martin D. Kennedy, another TCPR scholar, runs the blog TennEconomics. On November 29, 2006, Kennedy wrote: "We don't know if fossil fuels lead to warming and if so, how damaging it is." On February 13, Kennedy linked, without comment, to a Drudge Report flash titled "President of Czech Republic Calls Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity..."
  • Vanderbilt University student Douglas Kurdziel, a TCPR research fellow, blogged sarcastically about Gore's lectures on global warming on the website of the Vanderbilt Torch, "Vanderbilt's Conservative and Libertarian Commentary Magazine." He wrote: "On September 28, all of humanity inched one step closer to complete annihilation... Al Gore spoke to hundreds of United Nations diplomats and staff about climate change. Although it may seem like it sometimes, this is in fact not the reason for the impending obliteration of life on Earth."

From the March 1 Washington Post article "War on Warming Begins at (Al Gore's) Home":

Fresh off his victory lap at the Academy Awards, former vice president Al Gore -- who has not closed the door on a 2008 bid -- found himself in a more familiar position: on the receiving end of a political attack.

The barb came via the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based think tank that advocates "limited government through policy solutions," according to its Web site.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said the group's president, Drew Johnson, in a release alleging that Gore's house in the Volunteer State uses 20 times as much electricity as the average household nationwide.

Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Gore, called the statement misleading.

"The power coming into their residence is green, renewable power," she said, explaining that the Gores participate in a program called Green Power Switch, which is run through the public Tennessee Valley Authority. Green Power Switch supplies energy from renewable sources to its members.

Kreider added that a renovation of the Gores' house is underway to make it more energy efficient, an update that will include the addition of solar panels.

Johnson was unimpressed. "The energy he receives into his house is no different than what I receive into my house," he said. "He doesn't have a green power line hooked to his house."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by chb2066009 (March 01, 2007 7:52 pm ET)
         

      I grow tired of Exxon-Mobil funded 'green' institutes attacking everyone, but admittedly Gore could do better at energy conservation. It leaves too much of an opening for people like Limbaugh to claim that Bush is more energy-conscious than Gore, absurd as that claim is.

       But I guess Coulter claims that conservation is anti-human, so Gore must be a humanist by her definition.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (March 01, 2007 8:41 pm ET)
         

      surprise surprise. more wing nut falsehoods. "the gores participate in a program called green power switch". he's doing something. he's not a hypocrite. and just like they did in 2000, the media is glad to repeat right wing talking points.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (March 01, 2007 9:10 pm ET)
           

        "The energy he receives into his house is no different than what I receive into my house,"

        What? I thought Gore had invented a whole new kind of electricity.

        This seems to be the righty stance on attacking Gore, just a complete inability to understand any technology, or difference in sources.I don't know if it's playing dumb, or genuine dumb.

        Coultergeist was sort of in the same zone when she haunted Hannity's show the other night. Darryl Hannah was talking about energy efficient homes and alternative energy, and Coulter's argument was that it takes energy to manufacture and deliver the building materials, so how could anything make a difference?

        Then she started babbling on about how energy is what drives the economy, and telling people not to use energy is like telling them not to breathe air.

        Progress? New technology? YIKES!!

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (March 01, 2007 9:33 pm ET)
             

          i heard that argument somewhere before. it takes energy to manufacture solar panels. uh yeah, and then you save lots more. i said yesterday the real problem with solar is the oil companies can't charge for it. as for playing dumb vs. genuine dumb, if i had to go by the example of some of our right wing trolls on here, i would say they go hand in hand.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Pithaughn (March 02, 2007 2:47 pm ET)
               

            Back in 1990, I was researching solar powered domstic hot water systems. At that time, the solar system sales person admitted that with the energy needed to manufacture, ship install etc. in other words comparing the total cost of ownership in energy terms (joules maybe? BTU's?) solar was more costly. This was for a 2000 sf house. What I also learned though was that for a commercial application, like a restuarant, solar was far superior since the amount of energy collected over the life of the equipment was exponentionally greater. In other words, a hot water heater for a house would heat x number of gallons of water per panel, while the same panel would heat 1000 x's in a commercial setting.

            Speculating here, but I think one of the reasons the right wing seems to be against solar power is it decentralizes the energy market. The right wing is more comfortable with having all the energy come from a centralized system, ie power plants, so that profits are centralized and can be distributed to the owners of the capital necessary to build huge power plants. Just a feeling I have from talking to some coal fired power plant consultants who also are very conservative. The only real legitimate point they have is that when my solar powered system is broken I will assume that the grid will be there and get me through till my little system is fixed. I'll buy that, but certainly at some point, the market would be so saturated with local solar systems that there would be someone available for emergency service, like what is available now for plumbing. If you were an early adopter of indoor flush toilets, the expertise to service was rare. Now that there are lot's of flush toilets, I can go to the hardware store, describe my problem and the helpfull clerk will sell the parts I need to fix it. Eventually, the same market would exist for servicing solar systems.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by hogprint (March 02, 2007 3:51 pm ET)
                 

              Pithaughn, I think you'll always be on the grid, but if you move into negative numbers of usage the power company will buy back the amount you are contributing to the grid.  At least that is how it works in my neck of the woods. 

              Like you, I looked into a solar water heater to augment my electric WH.  The cost (this was three yrs ago) would have been too much for the amount of time I would have to stay in the house to recoup the cost. 

              If I ever build my own though, or step up to the dream house where I camp out for many years, solar power is definitely on my to do list.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by NGOfficer (March 02, 2007 5:49 pm ET)
                   

                If youwant a quicker return on your investment, you should look at a geothermal heat pump. You can usually recoup your money in 7 - 10 years. A geothermal heat pump will heat/cool your house as well as produce hot water

                Report Abuse
    • Author by DorisRussell (March 01, 2007 9:54 pm ET)
         

      More like "Anti Gore Think Tank"

      These people are so hateful and desperate.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (March 01, 2007 10:01 pm ET)
         

      How about a little background of Brian J Levy.

      On Gore's exaggerations: 

       - Gore ran on a paranoid’s dream platform of the “people vs. powerful,” but was undone by his exaggerations fitting the stereotypical lying politician. - BJL

      On politics:

       - In conclusion, semi-dishonest marketing appears to be the only solution...the Democratic solution must be a scheme to rebuild the appearance of integrity, which will lead to assumptions that favor pro-government politics and policies. - BJL

      On Howard Dean:

       - Regretfully, it is harder for a Democrat to defend Howard Dean. Dean has been gaffe prone ever since he joined the national scene. - BJL

      On Pres. Bush and liberals patriotism:

       - He is a terrible president. But to suggest that President Bush is evil in the "nightmare incarnate level" (about which I'm thinking Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.) rather than the "Ronald Reagan" evil is misleading and anti-American. - BJL

      Gore lost because of telling whoppers...democrats need to be dishonest to regain power...Dean was a buffoon...liberals who call Pres.Bush evil are un-American.

      That's a little background on this author...take it or leave it.

       

       

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (March 02, 2007 1:10 am ET)
           

        It would be much easier to understand your point if you had been kind enough to provide links instead of just snips of what appear to be larger articles.

        You occasionally complain when MMFA isn't being transparent and often when you have done that I have agreed with you.  It would be nice if you could supply your links and avoid the appearance of a double-standard here.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (March 02, 2007 6:37 am ET)
             

          it would be even better if he had a point. what do any of these statements have to do with the issue of al gore and energy use. i think it's pretty much a sign of wesley's lack of argument here. and all of us on here have all kinds of opinions that don't fit in with some supposed preset ideology. the opinions on hillary, for one.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by bingvangorden (March 02, 2007 2:29 pm ET)
           

        Name one whopper that wasn't a right wing myth like he said he invented the internet. Secondly if you can recall, Gore did not lose the presidential election. It was awarded to Bush despite Gore winning the popular vote and by the SCOTUS telling Florida to stop counting votes. Independent news agencies all offered their recount scenarios and all but one showed Gore winning handidly. But I digress.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Buzzramjet (March 02, 2007 1:13 am ET)
         

      I keep hoping and praying some day that ONE, JUST ONE, MSM figure, say Wolf, or Scarborough, will ask the Thug party reps why they have to lie all the time.

       Why isn't telling the truth an OPTION?

       Cuz you KNOW none of them would show up on Keith Olbermann's show. Their widdle heads would explode first.

       Someday, maybe we'll see an honest Neo Con. Although I am sure it would be like sighting Elvis, or the Easter Bunny.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (March 02, 2007 2:06 pm ET)
           

        because these thugs have discovered that these journalists (?) accept their questions being rewriten on the fly. Mccain is good at that by restating " the question really should be " followed by his standard rant till time is up. Why do we have 24/7 cable news but only a few minutes for answers that require deep thought and structure ?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (March 02, 2007 12:43 pm ET)
         

      What does a " think Tank " do for a living ?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pjcarter (March 02, 2007 4:44 pm ET)
         

      Jason "Drew" Johnson and his other naysayers tend to forget one little eensy teensy thing in their argument against the human impact on the environment.  Well. actually two. 

      1.  There are over 6 billion people on the planet!

      2.  Our level of technology is at the highest level known in all of mankind's history.

      Maybe his "think tank" ought to think about that!! 

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by hogprint (March 03, 2007 5:18 pm ET)
         

      All valid points on this think tank running hits on Gore, but I think you're missing the point here that they hit one out of the park with Gore and the power usage. 

      No where has anyone denied or even given much of a defense save the "offsets" claim.  This is one Gore could have avoided and he didn't step out of the way.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (March 03, 2007 8:49 pm ET)
           

        uh, the "defense" is.... the "offsets" claim. that's the issue at hand.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (March 03, 2007 11:04 pm ET)
           

        I assess it a little differently. I think it was a swing and a miss.

        The Global Warming debate isn't entirely about energy usage per se.  It is about anthropogenic global warming gases being created.  Al Gore's house doesn't contribute to that problem.  So his energy usage is a non-issue there.

        I would believe that the bigger hit is the "offsets", but considering Al does videoconferencing and no other valid alternatives have been suggested, the argument against Al appears invalid and self-serving.  Al is going to have to travel sometime.  He can't expect to be an international figure if he never leaves his tent.  It appears to be unavoidable just as exhaling CO2 contributes to Global Warming.

        At some level we can all be considered hypocrites, that doesn't make the criticism valid.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (March 04, 2007 10:00 am ET)
           

        gore pays extra money to buy power produced through either solar or wind power. other than sit in a darkened house and riding a bicycle to the ends of the earth, it's hard to think what gore  could do to satisfy the right wing on this issue. but even then......how much energy did it take to produce that bicycle, why can't he walk.....

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.