June 2006

CONTENTS

State Global Warming LawsPage 1

Philanthropy NotesPage 8

New York Governor George Pataki (left). Pataki has saddled New York andNew England with costly global warming regulations.

Summary: “If the feds won’t act, make thestates do it!” That’s the environmentalmovement’s latest demand. During the lastdecade green groups have repeatedly failedto win support from Congress and the WhiteHouse for national and internationalcontrols on greenhouse gas emissions. Butthe activists won’t give up and they are nowplaying politics in state capitals. MyronEbell of the Competitive Enterprise Instituteputs it succinctly: Global warming alarmistswant to pass “50 mini-Kyotos.”

What is less well-understood is the roleprivate philanthropy plays in promotingstate government climate change regula-tion. When states pass emissions laws man-dating compliance from individuals andindustry, who would suspect that privatefoundations are behind the effort?

The Kyoto Protocol (named after theJapanese city in which it wasnegotiated in 1997) requires that na-

tions agreeing to its provisions reduce theirgreenhouse gas emission by about 5.2 per-cent below 1990 levels by the year 2012.President Bill Clinton signed the protocol butnever sent it to the Senate for ratification.Why? Because the Senate preemptivelyvoted 95-0 to oppose any international mea-sures on global warming that harm the U.S.economy. When President George W. Bushtook office in 2001 he called the Kyoto Proto-col “fatally flawed” and withdrew the U.S.signature. A recent attempt by Senators JohnMcCain and Joseph Lieberman to establishless stringent emissions standards—ridiculedas Kyoto-Lite by its opponents—was de-feated 43-55 in the Senate in 2003.

State Global Warming LawsHow Foundation Grants Affect Climate Policy

By David Hogberg and James Dellinger

The Bush Administration has opted in-stead to promote voluntary agreements. One,dubbed the “Asia-Pacific Partnership on CleanDevelopment and Climate,” encourages thetransfer of greenhouse-gas reducing tech-nologies between the U.S., India, Australia,China, Japan and South Korea and wouldinvolve the private sector in reducing green-house gases.

But that’s not good enough for the envi-ronmental movement. With its global warm-ing agenda stalled on the national level, greengroups are trekking to state capitals to pres-sure lawmakers to require mandatory caps onthe emission of carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gases. Funded heavily by majorphilanthropic foundations, particularly theEnergy Foundation and, to a lesser extent, thePew Charitable Trusts, the big guns of the

environmental movement have won an im-pressive victory: In 2005 seven states in theNortheast agreed to limit greenhouse gasesby participating in a Regional GreenhouseGas Initiative, or RGGI. Green groups are nowmoving to create similar state and regionalagreements on the West Coast and in theSouth and Midwest.

FoundationWatch

2 June 2006

Editor: Matthew Vadum

Publisher: Terrence Scanlon

Foundation Watchis published by Capital ResearchCenter, a non-partisan education andresearch organization, classified bythe IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity.

Address:1513 16th Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20036-1480

Phone: (202) 483-6900Long-Distance: (800) 459-3950

E-mail Address:mvadum@capitalresearch.org

Web Site:http://www.capitalresearch.org

Reprints are available for $2.50 prepaidto Capital Research Center.

Critics in the scientific community ob-serve that there is not enough hard evidenceto justify the drastic policies proposed byglobal warming alarmists. But advocacygroups and their foundation funders are stam-peding local communities and state lawmak-ers into taking actions they will regret.

New York and New England Take the Pledge In December 2005, the governors of Con-necticut, Delaware, Maine, New York, NewJersey, New Hampshire and Vermont arrivedat a far-reaching agreement. They said thatby the year 2019 their states would cut theirgreenhouse gas emissions by ten percentbelow 1990 levels using a “cap-and-trade”system. Under “cap-and-trade” every powerplant in the RGGI states would have a fixedlimit on the amount of greenhouse gases itcould emit. Power plants that exceeded theamount could purchase “credits” from powerplants that emitted less than their prescribedlimit. Although RGGI currently applies onlyto about 180 power plants, it is estimated thatit eventually could include some 600 electric-ity generators that emit greenhouse gases.Interestingly, the governors of Massachu-setts and Rhode Island declined to join theagreement, arguing that the price their powerplants would have to pay to purchase thecredits was too high. According to the agree-

ment, each state legislature has to pass lawsby December 31, 2008 to conform to RGGI,which is set to take effect on January 1, 2009.

RGGI is the culmination of much pushingand pulling in Northeastern state capitals. In1998, the head of New Jersey’s Department ofEnvironmental Protection issued an execu-tive order with the approval of GovernorChristine Todd Whitman. CommissionerRobert Shinn pledged to reduce New Jersey’sgreenhouse gas emissions to 3.5 percentbelow 1990 levels by 2005. The followingyear, New York Governor George Pataki alsotook a pledge: He promised to reduce mer-cury emissions by 50 percent more than fed-eral standards. That action gave environ-mentalists the bright idea to pressure him topledge to put caps on carbon dioxide as well.Pataki established a task force to look into theissue in June 2001. Meanwhile, in August2001, six states—Connecticut, Maine, Mas-sachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,and Vermont—entered into a non-bindingagreement with five Canadian provinces toreduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990levels by 2010.

Then in June 2003, Governor Pataki askedthe six New England states as well as Dela-ware, Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylva-nia to join New York in formulating a plan toreduce greenhouse gases. Nine of the elevenstates initially participated in the RegionalGreenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI. (Penn-sylvania opted only to observe the processwhile Maryland will not become a participantuntil 2007.) Meetings began in May 2004.

There is a precedent for Northeastern statecooperation on pollution problems.NESCAUM—the Northeast States for Coor-dinated Air Use Management—is a non-profit consortium created in 1967 and all thestates from Maine to Maryland (except Dela-ware) use it to deal with air pollution causedby their power plants. In the new regionalinitiative NESCAUM is supposed to estab-lish the greenhouse gas database or registrywhere power plants will record their green-house gas emissions and track their progressin reducing them.

The Energy Foundation, Pew Target theStates Clearly, the governors and many other

state lawmakers are eager to demonstratethat they are alarmed by global warming.They want the power to increase the regula-tions on utilities that emit greenhouse gases.What’s less understood, however, is the roleprivate philanthropy plays in pressuringpolicymakers to accept the claims of climatealarmists. RGGI is the product of lengthydeliberations that included not only stateofficials but many other so-called “stake-holders”—including major environmentalgroups.

The Energy Foundation and the Pew Chari-table Trusts are two of the biggest funders ofstate-level climate change initiatives. TheEnergy Foundation, which partners with Pewand the David and Lucile Packard Founda-tion on a joint climate program, acknowl-edges that the “policy and education effortssupported by this program are expressly fo-cused on mitigating global warming.” (Seetheir Website at http://www.ef.org/programs.cfm?program=climate.) The focusof its funding is on “state and regional carboncap-and-trade programs” and “state and re-gional greenhouse gas plans and targets.”

Since 2001 the Energy Foundation hasdistributed over 75 grants totaling more than$5.6 million for state climate change initia-tives. (For more on the Energy Foundationsee the January 2006 Foundation Watch.)This includes $260,000 the foundation gaveNESCAUM in 2002-2004 to develop the green-house gas registry—the task assigned to itunder RGGI—and another $25,000 it gaveNESCAUM to develop a cap-and-trade pro-gram. In 2001 the Energy Foundation alsogave $157,000 to an environmental groupcalled Northeast States Clean Air Founda-tion to “support NESCAUM’s work on aNortheast regional goal for greenhouse gasreduction.” To date, the David and LucilePackard Foundation has made a single$250,000 grant—to the Energy Foundation in2004—for work on RGGI.

The Energy Foundation also makes grantsto environmental advocacy groups to createthe appearance of a public clamor for morestate global warming regulations. It gave theNatural Resources Defense Council a totalof $300,000 in 2003-2004 to “advocate for acarbon cap-and-trade system in the North-east, and to strengthen the West Coast Cli-

3June 2006

FoundationWatch

For frequent updates on environmental groups,nonprofits, foundations, and labor unions, check out the

CRC-Greenwatch Blog at

www.capitalresearch.org/blog

The RegionalGreenhouse Gas

Initiative is theproduct of lengthydeliberations thatincluded not onlystate officials but

many other so-called“stakeholders”—including major

environmental groups.

mate Initiative.” Environment Northeast got$80,000 in 2004 to “help develop a climatechange roadmap for New England and toserve as a stakeholder to” RGGI. The Centerfor Public Interest Research took in $300,000in 2003-2004 to support a coalition called theNew England Climate Action Project for workon “regional solutions to climate change.” Itgave $50,000 to the Union of ConcernedScientists in 2004 to “design and implementthe [RGGI] carbon market in the Northeast,”and it distributed annual $50,000 grants toEnvironmental Advocates of New York in2002 through 2004 to affect Northeast climatechange policies. (For a full list of state climatechange grants, see the GreenWatch High-light for June 2, 2006 at www.greenwatch.org.)

The Pew Charitable Trusts gives fewergrants to outside state-level climate changeprojects. That’s because the $4 billion phil-anthropic foundation converted itself into apublic charity in 2004, and it has been verygenerous to itself. Of the more than $10.2million Pew has spent on climate changeprograms since 2002, the bulk—$9.7 million—supports Pew’s own Strategies for the GlobalEnvironment. This is an umbrella organiza-tion for the Pew Center on Global ClimateChange.

The Pew Center dedicates an entire por-tion of its website (http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/state_policy/index.cfm) to state climate

change policies. It contains announcementsabout Pew-sponsored workshops, policyreports, and a database of state and localprograms that claim to reduce greenhousegas emissions. The Pew Center is also a“stakeholder” in the RGGI process. Its Direc-tor of Innovative Solutions, former ClintonWhite House staffer Judi Greenwald, hasattended all RGGI workshops and made apresentation on allocating carbon-dioxidecredits at a June 2004 workshop. (For more onthe Pew Center on Global Climate Change,see the May 2004 Foundation Watch.)

Sometimes it seems as if the Pew programsand the Energy Foundation grant recipientsare more involved in RGGI than even thestates themselves. Dale Bryk, senior attor-ney at the Natural Resources Defense Coun-cil, and Derek Murrow, director of policyanalysis at Environment Northeast, have at-tended every RGGI workshop and they maderecommendations at a May 2006 workshopdealing with the cap-and-trade system. TheUnion of Concerned Scientists, Public Inter-est Research Group, American Council for anEnergy Efficient Economy, EnvironmentalAdvocates of New York, and the Conserva-tion Law Foundation—all Energy Founda-

tion grantees—have made themselves play-ers in the RGGI policy process. The NaturalResources Defense Council has gone theextra mile: the 501(c)(3) organization has lob-bied the New York state government on RGGI.

“Grassroots” groups are also in formationto pressure state policymakers. A group calledClean Air-Cool Planet, focuses its programson the nine states that first joined RGGI. Itsprograms are supposed to “build constituen-cies for effective climate policies and ac-tions” by targeting local city governments,businesses and college campuses. Clean Air-Cool Planet warns that global warming threat-ens local industries and agriculture. And woeunto pancake-eaters: In Vermont one of itsbumper-stickers says, “Save Our Syrup: StopGlobal Warming.” The group bestowed its“Climate Champion” award on GovernorPataki last year. Clean Air-Cool Planet doesn’tpass the hat to fund its programs. It received$210,000 from the Energy Foundation in 2003-2004.

West Coast Low Carbon Diet Of course no self-respecting environmen-talist group ignores California and the PacificNorthwest. While green groups pressed

FoundationWatch

4 June 2006

Governor Pataki to undertake a Northeastregional approach to global warming, theycheered on Governors Gray Davis, TedKulongoski and Gary Locke, who in Septem-ber 2003 launched a West Coast GovernorsGlobal Warming Initiative (WCGGWI). Thatinitiative has developed a laundry list of

proposals, which includes setting up com-mon standards for measuring greenhousegas emissions and suggestions on how touse state purchasing power to promote fuelefficiency. WCGGWI staff reports recom-mend that the states collaborate in coming upwith ways to update building energy codes,cut emissions on state vehicle fleets, buymore hybrid cars and trucks, and set uptransportation electrification sites at truckstops along the 1380 mile-long I-5 highwaycorridor. The three governors’ offices cre-ated a raft of task forces and working groups,which invite environmentalist “stakehold-ers” to join their deliberations.

To date WCGGWI has made less progressthan the Northeast regional initiative—GrayDavis’s recall a month after the agreementwas reached was surely a factor—but theWest Coast effort is just as assertive inarguing that changes to the West Coastclimate require new, bold and complex gov-ernment actions.

In 1997 Oregon became the only WestCoast state to put a hard cap on CO2 emis-sions by some electricity producers, and itrequired new utilities to cut emissions by 17percent below that achieved by the mostefficient turbine plant. Oregon DemocraticGovernor Ted Kulongoski, elected in 2003,supported Oregon’s many long-standing“smart-growth” policies restricting land-useand road-building. He vowed to factor in the

threat of global warming whenever the statereviews its policies. Kulongoski created aglobal warming advisory group which issueda 192-page book of recommendations meantto reduce the sources of greenhouse gases.It called on state residents to drive their carsless and use more mass transit. Truck drivers

were encouraged to reduce their tendency toidle their vehicles. Engineers and architectsin Portland were urged to design more energyefficient “green” buildings, and so on. Theadvisory group warned Oregonians that theyneeded to act now or expect “coastal andriver flooding, snowpack declines, lowersummer river flows, impacts to farm andforest productivity” and other ill effects.

Some even said global warming could hurtOregon’s burgeoning wine industry. Grow-ers would have to curtail production of thestate’s signature pinot noir, which needs acooler climate, and be forced to producemore—horrors!—merlot.

In Washington, Democratic governorsGary Locke and Christine Gregoire, Locke’ssuccessor, followed Oregon’s example bypursuing their own state CO2 “mitigation”policies (i.e., policies to reduce man-madesources of carbon dioxide). They too put ahard cap on CO2 emitted from new powerplants subject to state approval, requiringthem to reduce emissions by 20 percent.Gregoire also imposed on Washington carowners California’s CO2 vehicle emissionstandards, the toughest in the nation.

One of the biggest promoters of climatechange policy in the Northwest is the Olym-pia, Washington-based Climate Solutions.Claiming that its mission is “to stop globalwarming at the earliest point possible by

helping the Pacific Northwest and BritishColumbia become world leaders in practicaland profitable solutions,” it achieves this viaits “Northwest Climate Connection” project.The Northwest Climate Connection is a coa-lition of environmental groups, businesses,and local governments “working together todemonstrate how protecting the climate helpsus build a healthier, more sustainable re-gion.” Since 2003, Climate Solutions hasreceived $250,000 from the Energy Founda-tion to promote climate change solutions inthe Pacific Northwest.

California Dreamin’ Ultimately, however, everything comesdown to California. Just like Hollywood’sfilmmakers, the state’s global warming lobbyis infatuated with public relations and mar-keting gimmicks. Nonprofit advocacy groupsand their foundation funders are doing ev-erything possible to persuade energy-de-pendent Californians to accept a carbon-constricted lifestyle. Foundations know Cali-fornia is the key, and they have been pouringmoney into the state. For instance, the Hewlettand Packard foundations each donated$150,000 the Union of Concerned Scientistsin 2003 for “analysis of climate change inCalifornia and to support state based actionto reduce global warming emissions.” TheEnergy Foundation contributed $36,000 in2003 to the Natural Resources Defense Coun-cil to “model the impact of global warming onozone levels in three California cities” andanother $100,000 in 2004 to the Union ofConcerned Scientists to “study the impactsof climate change on California.”

The Energy Foundation gave $200,000in 2001 to the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT) in“support of start-up of California’s volun-tary greenhouse gas registry.” The nonprofitCalifornia Climate Action Registry, created in2001 by legislation signed by Governor GrayDavis, is supposed to help businesses, mu-nicipal governments and public utilities learnmore about the causes of global warming—and their legal liabilities. It allows them toregister their own greenhouse gas emissions,voluntarily, in order to receive help in cuttingthem. But of course environmental groupsuse the data it collects to lobby for moregovernment controls.

One of the biggest promoters of climate changepolicy in the Northwest is the Olympia, Wash-ington-based Climate Solutions. Since 2003,

Climate Solutions has received $250,000 fromthe Energy Foundation to promote climatechange solutions in the Pacific Northwest.

5June 2006

FoundationWatch

Free market supporters got their hopes upwhen Arnold Schwarzenegger replacedDavis, but Ahnuld too has jumped on theclimate action bandwagon. Last June hesigned an executive order calling for volun-tary emission-reduction targets. However,the Governor must now compete with theDemocratic-led State Assembly to show hisconcern. On April 3, the Democrats intro-duced legislation to turn Schwarzenegger’svoluntary goals into mandatory caps. So farthe Governor has been careful to avoid reject-ing outright the Democrats’ “cap-and-trade”bill, which would cut emissions from powerplants and refineries to 1990 levels by theyear 2025.

If California adopts cap-and-trade, therewill be little to stand in the way of efforts tomake the state-based policy a nationwideone. Despite the Bush Administration’s op-position to intrusive government man-dates, American industry may yet be tied upby fifty “mini-Kyotos.” It’s important to notethat global warming activists have no real

interest in crafting local and regional policies.Rather, they hope that by creating a “policypatchwork” of state laws, large corporationswill opt to support a national policy of man-dated emission controls. The goal is federalpreemption, not federalism. Already, GeneralElectric, Shell, and the two largest U.S. utili-ties, Exelon and Duke Energy, have indicatedthat they would welcome or accept manda-tory caps on their greenhouse gas emissions.Wal-Mart now speaks in favor of carboncaps.

“What will happen, of course, is that Cali-fornia will do its thing, and then New Englandwill start to weigh in, New York state, andpretty soon we’ll end up with a patchwork,”Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford,Jr. has said. “I really would like to have anational approach to this, because otherwisewe and other manufacturers will have a reallyhard time responding.”

Economic Costs Environmentalists love to claim that im-

posing restrictions on carbon di-oxide will have little to no impacton the U.S. economy. Some evenargue that regulation will createmore jobs. But more honest envi-ronmentalists acknowledge thatreducing carbon dioxide will likelyhave an adverse impact on eco-nomic growth. Interviewed by theWashington Post , EileenClaussen, President of the PewCenter on Climate Change, admit-ted that “a major transition awayfrom fossil fuels will not be free.”

One early study by WhartonEconometric Forecasting Asso-ciates found that state economieswould be hurt if the U.S. adoptedthe Kyoto treaty’s carbon restric-tions. New York would lose140,000 jobs and $7.1 billion in taxrevenue as unemployment roseto 7.8 percent. Washington Statecould lose nearly 47,000 jobs and$2.4 billion in tax revenue andunemployment would approach

6.8 percent.

A more recent American Council for Capi-tal Formation study found that RGGI wouldincrease the costs of electricity in participat-ing states by an average of 35 percent in 2010and 39 percent in 2020. Industrial natural gasprices could rise by 111 percent in 2010 and119 percent in 2020. Gasoline prices couldcontinue to increase by 39 percent in 2010and 44 percent in 2020.

Job losses would also rise to near 192,000by 2010 and 218,000 by 2020. As energygrows more costly job creators may find thatthey can stay profitable only by cutting jobsor moving to less expensive locations. Lossesto Northeastern gross state product could be1.1 percent in 2010 and 1.9 percent in 2020.

Finally, the purchasing power of typicalhouseholds in Northeastern states will suf-fer. A typical family could face erosion inpurchasing power averaging $2,600 in 2010and $3,000 in 2020 (in 1999 dollars).

There has been no comparable analysis ofthe WCGGWI. However, studies of the Cali-

Will Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (pictured above with actor Jackie Chan) impose globalwarming restrictions similar to RGGI on California, Oregon, and Washington?

FoundationWatch

6 June 2006

The leaders of the “anti-war” movementtoday are leftists who oppose capitalismand believe in socialism. Many are com-munists. At root, they are anti-American

rather than anti-war. Anti-war groups havetheir own outlets for propaganda, employsophisticated tactics and exploit moderninformation technology to give their mes-

sages instant and global reach. In thisimportant new book from Capital Research

Center, international affairs expert Dr.John J. Tierney traces the leftist ideologi-cal roots of this influential movement, and

exposes its trategies and objectives.

Single copy $20Three or more only $15 each.

To order, call800-459-3950

or mail your check and order to:Capital Research Center

1513 16th Street, NWWashington, DC 20036

fornia law signed by then-Governor GrayDavis found that mandated reductions ingreenhouse gas auto emissions would addmore than $1,000 to the average sticker priceof every new car and light truck sold in thestate, according to the California Air Re-sources Board (CARB). Published media re-ports by the group Sierra Research concludethat regulation will add more like $3,000 to theaverage price of cars and light trucks inCalifornia and in other states that adopt Cali-fornia standards.

Economists who say, “There is no suchthing as a free lunch,” mean it. The U.S.economy is heavily dependent on technolo-gies that produce carbon dioxide. Govern-ment policies restricting its production willnot be cost-free. Indeed, economic growthmay come to a standstill.

Which State Is Next? As climate change policies in the North-east and West become reality, where willglobal-warming alarmists turn their attentionnext? One state already in their crosshairs isNorth Carolina.

In 2005, the North Carolina General As-sembly passed, and Governor Mike Easleysigned into law, a bill that established a “Leg-islative Commission On Global ClimateChange.” The Commission is charged withstudying “issues related to global warming,the emerging carbon economy, and whetherit is appropriate and desirable for the state toestablish a global warming pollutant reduc-tion goal.” Chances are good that the com-mission will find it “appropriate and desir-able” for North Carolina to reduce green-house gases. As the free-market North Caro-

lina-based John Locke Foun-dation notes, the Commissioncontain “representatives fromfour left-of-center environmen-tal pressure groups—Environ-mental Defense, the SouthernAlliance for Clean Energy, theNorth Carolina Coastal Federa-tion, and the North CarolinaConservation Council. All ofthese groups hold alarmist po-sitions on global warming andadvocate extensive regulationof private decision-making tocombat the threat that they claimclimate change poses.” TheJohn Locke Foundation alsonotes that there are “no econo-mists on the commission,” and“only one [member], the stateclimatologist of North Carolina,Dr. Sethu Raman, has a spe-cialty in climate-related sci-ences.”

Environmental Defense hasbeen pushing climate changeaction in North Carolina for anumber of years. In 2003, it re-leased an extensive report en-titled “Understanding GlobalWarming for North Carolina”recommending that “North Caro-lina leaders should establish agoal to reduce global warmingpollutants.” Environmental

Defense has lobbied the state’s GeneralAssembly, although lobbying reports do notspecify if climate-change legislation was in-cluded.

The Energy Foundation also has its fin-gerprints on North Carolina. Another mem-ber of the Commission, the Southern Alli-ance for Clean Energy, received a $100,000grant from the Energy Foundation in 2003 “toeducate policymakers about near-term stepsNorth Carolina can take on climate change.”It received another $100,000 grant from theEnergy Foundation in 2004 “to assist in thedevelopment of a state climate change planto reduce global warming pollution in NorthCarolina.” On its website, the Boston-basedClean Air Task Force notes that it has workedwith Environmental Defense and the South-ern Alliance for Clean Energy on global-warming policies in North Carolina. In 2003,the Energy Foundation gave a $35,000 grantto the Clean Air Task Force “to providetechnical support for state climate advocatesin Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina.”Although Environmental Defense receives agreat deal of funding from the Energy Foun-dation (over $4 million since 1999), and someof it is for global warming campaigns, nonewas specifically dedicated for activity inNorth Carolina.

Besides North Carolina, global warmingalarmists have other states in their sights.Here is a summary of other states beingtargeted:

Pennsylvania: The Energy Foundation

Eileen Claussen, President of the PewCenter on Climate Change. Claussenadmits “a major transition away from

fossil fuels will not be free.”

7June 2006

FoundationWatch

You can probe thebackgrounds of many of the

organizations profiled in

Foundation Watchby visiting our

online database at

www.capitalresearch.org

You can also retrieve past issues ofCRC newsletters, including

Organization TrendsFoundation Watch

Labor WatchCompassion and Culture

Past issues may be ordered for $2.50each. Orders must be prepaid. For

information or credit card orders, call(800) 459-3950.

Or mail your check to:

Capital Research Center,1513 16th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

The work of the

Capital Research Center

continues solely through

the generosity of our

contributors.

Please remember

Capital Research Center

in your will and estate

planning. Thank you for

your support.Terrence Scanlon, President

FW

seems eager to see Pennsylvania becomemore than just an observer in the RGGI. In2003, it gave $34,000 to the Pittsburgh-basedEnterprising Environmental Solutions “toassess options for a credible greenhouse gasregistry for Pennsylvania” and $50,000 to thePennsylvania Environmental Council to “de-velop a climate change roadmap for Pennsyl-vania, in consultation with key stakehold-ers.” In 2004 it gave $48,000 to Citizens forPennsylvania’s Future to “support the ‘CoolPennsylvania Campaign’ and lay the ground-work for global warming policies in Pennsyl-vania.” However, efforts in the KeystoneState suffered a blow in February when theState Senate voted 34-13 to block GovernorEd Rendell’s attempt to impose restrictivevehicle emission standards.

Texas: Although Texas seems an unlikelytarget, the Lone Star State has already adoptedrenewable energy mandates and a green-house gas registry. Thus, it should come asno surprise that in 2001 the Energy Founda-tion gave $45,000 to Public Citizen to “sup-port advocacy for a strong statewide globalwarming plan in Texas.” Also, the TurnerFoundation gave $75,000 for “support ofstate-based advocacy around Texas’s glo-bal warming plan.”

Midwest: The Lake Michigan Air Directors’Consortium—which includes Illinois, Indi-ana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin—is al-ready developing a voluntary greenhousegas registry. It received $100,000 for that

purpose from the Joyce Foundation in Chi-cago in 2005. The Joyce Foundation gavegrants in 2003 to the Pew Center on ClimateChange ($57,500) to “support a meeting forGreat Lakes business leaders and govern-ment regulators to discuss possible stateresponses to climate change” and to theUnion of Concerned Scientists ($50,000) to“brief state and local officials on the findingsof its new report on the effects of climatechange on the waters of the Great Lakes.”The Energy Foundation has also gotten intothe act in the Midwest. It gave $75,000 in 2001to the Environmental Law and Policy Centerfor the Midwest to “expand the Global Warm-ing Leadership Council, a business coalitiondedicated to promoting clean energy in theMidwest” and $15,000 in 2004 to the Regentsof the University of Michigan to “create aMichigan state greenhouse gas inventory.”

Conclusion It is tempting for those living in moreconservative states to dismiss climate changepolicymaking as largely a project of BlueState America. That would be a mistake fortwo reasons. First, by tempting so manyofficials onto the global-warming-alarmismbandwagon, the environmentalists win morecredibility for their cause. When governorslike George Pataki and Arnold Schwarze-negger advocate in favor of global warmingregulations, they lend their prestige to globalwarming alarmism in all states.

Second, a state-by-state approach is ashrewd maneuver to build support for globalwarming regulations at the federal level. Statesthat adopt stringent restrictions on green-house gases will soon find themselves at aneconomic disadvantage with states that donot. Their officials will become afraid thattheir economies will be uncompetitive. Andthat will put the pressure on federal lawmak-ers to pass national greenhouse gas restric-tions that apply to all states to “level theplaying field.” In effect, by using the statesenvironmentalists are building a powerfulconstituency for regulations at the nationallevel.

When the Bush Administration quashedthe Kyoto Protocol, it prevented policy med-dling in an area that requires both carefulscience and openness to private sector tech-nological innovation. If there is man-made

A state-by-stateapproach is a shrewd

maneuver to buildsupport for global

warming regulations atthe federal level. It will

put the pressure onfederal lawmakers to

pass nationalgreenhouse gas

restrictions that apply toall states.

global warming, then efficient solutionsshould be developed in the marketplace—not imposed by fiat. Unfortunately, somefoundation grant-makers think otherwise.

David Hogberg edits Capital ResearchCenter online research programs “Edu-cation Watch” and “Greenwatch.” JamesDellinger is Research Associate at CRC .

FoundationWatch

8 June 2006

The newly-elected chairman of the Council on Foundations is Maxwell King, president of the Heinz Endow-ments. At the Council’s annual meeting in Pittsburgh last month, King announced that the old quiet, cautiousculture of philanthropy must give way to one which is “proactive, aggressive and very public.” In 2004 King wasoutspoken in denouncing Capital Research Center for its reports on the philanthropy of Teresa Heinz Kerry,chairman of the Howard Heinz Endowment and a member of the Vira I. Heinz Endowment board.

Speakers at this year’s Council on Foundations meeting included Teresa Heinz Kerry, Newt Gingrich andGeorge Soros, chairman of the Open Society Institute and Soros Foundations Network. Commenting onthe nature of open societies, Soros noted that he agrees with Vice President Cheney that Russia is becominga threat to Europe. However, he says the policies in Russia that worry Cheney “also apply to our society now.”

The major tax bill just passed by Congress contains almost none of the proposals to change the tax lawsgoverning charities that were the subject of Senate Finance Committee hearings last year. Senate-passedmeasures to allow deductions for donors who do not itemize, to let donors contribute to charities from theirIRAs without paying tax, and to tighten rules on conservation easements and donor-advised funds were alldropped in the conference committee.

The Phillips Foundation has announced that fellowships totaling $284,000 will go to eight young journalists.The Foundation and Thomas l. Phillips, chairman of Phillips International, Inc., hosted a dinner for the awardrecipients at the National Press Club on May 9. Past winners include Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayesand Tim Carney, author of The Big Rip-Off: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money forth-coming from John Wiley & Sons. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation assist with the funding of thefellowships.

Bob Barker, host of the TV game show “The Price Is Right,” has contributed $1 million to Georgetown Univer-sity Law Center for the study of animal rights law. “All of us interested in making the world a better place foranimals are delighted to have law schools of the stature of Georgetown University Law Center becomingincreasingly involved in animal rights law,” said Barker. What other organizations could enjoy Barker’s lar-gesse? People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, come on down!

As mentioned in last month’s “Philanthropy Notes,” Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox is probing the FordFoundation, claiming it owes Henry Ford’s home state support for local charities. But in the May 16 New YorkTimes, National Review reporter John J. Miller takes issue with Cox’s actions. “[W]hatever its flaws, the FordFoundation, which was started by Henry’s son, Edsel, is a private institution in a free society. It should not haveto endure political shakedowns, even when they come from well-meaning conservatives,” writes Miller. “Con-servatives may be tempted to think they stand to gain from any attack on the Ford Foundation, but in reality theyhave much to lose.” Miller’s point: If conservatives support Cox’s action, what defense will there be when aliberal attorney general sets his sight on a conservative foundation?

Is Google funding MoveOn.org? Say it isn’t so. According to the American Spectator, the popular searchengine is funding leftwing MoveOn.org to build grassroots support for “Net Neutrality” legislation, a form ofprotectionism for online companies like Google and Yahoo! A bill in Congress would prevent high-speednetwork operators such as Comcast and ATT from offering services such as video downloads or enhancedemail, thereby competing with internet giants like Google. Reportedly, Google has become MoveOn.org’slargest corporate backer, to the tune of $1 million.

PhilanthropyNotes