Hoe de industrie Frits Böttcher ruim betaalde

Zo'n 10 jaar geleden schreef ik een stukje over Frits Böttcher (1915-2008), de man die beschouwd kan worden als de aartsvader van het Nederlandse klimaatskepticisme: Böttcher was actief in verschillende schimmige lobbygroepen die een belangrijke rol speelden in het leggen van een ideologische basis waarin de huidige klimaatsceptici zich thuisvoelen.

Böttcher richtte in 1974 The Global Institute for the Study of Natural Resources op, een privé-vehikel dat later zou gaan samenwerken met de in 1993 opgerichte lobbygroep Heidelberg Appeal Nederland (HAN), een vereniging die allerhande figuren verzamelde die één ding gemeenschappelijk hadden: een afkeer van milieureglementering. De onderwerpen die HAN behandelde lezen als een historisch document over de milieureglementering die in die periode opkwam: HAN verzette zich tegen regels in landbouw, het destijds erg actuele onderwerp van fosfaatverontreiniging van oppervlaktewateren en bevatte ook tegenreacties tegen Greenpeace's toenmalige al dan niet terechte verzet tegen PVC, ...

HAN verloor rond de millenniumwissel zijn elan en transformeerde in 2004 in de nog steeds actieve libertarische sektarische groep De Groene Rekenkamer, een lobbygroep die op zijn beurt één continuüm vormt met de website climategate.nl, die op zijn beurt dan weer de hoofdbron is van het huidige Nederlandse pseudoklimaatscepticisme. 

Eén ding blijft een mysterie: wààrom Frits Böttcher, een man die mee aan de wieg stond van de Club van Rome. Wel is duidelijk dat Böttcher miop hoogbejaarde leeftijd de oervader zou worden van het Nederlandse klimaatskpeticisme. Die vraag kunnen we niet beantwoorden. Wel is duidelijk dat Böttcher de conclusies van het rapport Grenzen aan de Groei niet volledig onderschreef. Böttcher was wel overtuigd van bv. de gevolgen van overbevolking, maar verzette zich tegen een verhaal van een overheidsingrijpen om een duurzamer economisch model uit te werken. Die angst voor overheidsingrijpen klinkt dan weer erg bekend bij wie klimaatsceptici hun drijfveren kent.

Uit nooit eerder onderzochte documenten uit zijn persoonlijk archief is echter dit jaar ontdekt dat het klimaatscepticisme uit de jaren '90 van Böttcher financieel zwaar werd ondersteund door de industrie: Hoe Frits Böttcher met steun van tientallen bedrijven de basis legde voor de klimaatscepsis in Nederland. 

Bôttcher ontving meer dan een half miljoen euro (geïndexeerd meer dan een miljoen euro) van bedrijven zoals Shell, KLM, Hoogovens, AkzoNobel en de ANWB. Uit de documenten van Böttcher blijkt ook dat hijzelf allicht geloofde dat de rol van CO2 in klimaatverandering werd overschat, maar uit getuigenissen blijkt dat hijzelf eigenlijk niets van het onderwerp klimaat kende en dat dit hem ook niet erg interesseerde.

De rol van de industrie is ondertussen heel duidelijk: zoek een wetenschapper die een afwijkende mening heeft (maakt niet uit of ze klopt) en geef die persoon daarna zovéél geld om ervoor te zorgen dat die afwijkende mening overal gehoord wordt zodat die ene stem véél belangrijker overkomt dan ze is. Böttcher van zijn kant, zo bewijzen de stukken, wàs zich zelf ook bijzonder goed bewust dat hij niet optrad als wetenschapper maar als lobbyist. Böttcher gaf tientallen lezingen en schreef onder meer in zijn notities ‘[Shell topman] Huub [Van Engelshoven] benadrukte nog eens dat ik als wetenschapper neutraler overkom dan mensen uit het bedrijfsleven.’.  Ook richtte Böttcher de lobbygroep ESEF op, een groep die ontstond op uitdrukkelijke vraag van Böttchers sponsors om internationaal te gaan. Daarenboven schreef hij bv. een stuk voor het tijdschrift De Ingenieur na een uitdrukkelijke vraag van Huub van Engelshoven.

Op dergelijke manier beïnvloed worden en niet bekendmaken wie betaalt is niet meer of minder dan corruptie.

The Heidelberg Appeal

Roots of Dutch Climate scepticism series, part 6

A whole lotta astroturf groups

Before continuing the journey through Dutch climate scepticism, it is necessary to make a little side trip outside the country. In my post on Frits Böttcher, i mentioned the existence of an astroturf group called ESEF, which is considered to be the European counterpart of another astroturf group called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. This seems to have been the mothership.
But as seen many times when looking at the work of the industry, several small astroturf groups were founded. One of them is the International Centre for a Scientific Ecology (ICSE) which despites it’s name had very little to do with science. Sourcewatch describes it this way :

This organisation purported to be a grassroots scientific think-tank, but it was actually a scientific lobbyshop funded by a coalition of tobacco, asbestos, oil, coal and energy interests. For this reason it is often referred to as the "Heidelberg coalition" or "Heidelberg organisation" in the literature.

ICSE was ran by Michel Salomon and was working closely with S. Fred Singer’s personal toy Science and Environmental Policy Project (or SEPP). Salomon eventually would join SEPP. Both men also were member of the advisory board of ESEF, while ESEF’s Böttcher was part of the SEPP advisory board. All over, there are very close connections between the several astroturf organisations.
The Heidelberg Appeal
Michel Salomon is the man who wrote the text of The Heidelberg Appeal as a response to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
The Appeal stated that its signers "share the objectives of the 'Earth Summit'" but advised "the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data. ... The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology and Industry."
The Heidelberg Appeal was signed by a lot of scientist, including many Noble Prize Winners. The text nowhere mentions climate change, but remains vague all over. Nevertheless, with some bending and twisting, the lobby was able to make it look as if it did conclude there’s no consensus on the subject.
As stated many times before on this blog, the industry understood perfectly well that when someone is already biased against something, that person does not need to be convinced by proving science to be wrong, it's sufficient to create doubt that science is right, and this nothing but another example of how they are trying to create confusion.
Remarkably, the spreading of the document mostly went via … the tobacco industry.
Tobacco industry & Heidelberg appeal
This document and this one which were made public in the Tobacco Legacy Documents library leave no doubt about the roots of the Heidelberg Appeal. I’ve mentioned before that when the science was leaving less and less doubt that second-hand tobacco smoke indeed IS harmful; the tobacco industry in the 80’ies & beginning of the 90’ies was looking for a allies to form a broader coalition to attack science. this document by tobacco industry law firm APCO provides a brilliant insight in what the industry wanted :

As we stated during our meeting in London, we believe that a TASSC-like group can succeed in Europe. European policymakers place a significant amount of importance on objective research - particularly as it relates to technical issues. TASSC, if created properly, can become a credible commentator to complement or spearhead business objections to unfair public policies and pronouncements.

Moreover, by creating a coalition that is dedicated over the long run to speak out on issues relating to scientific integrity, TASSC can become a frequent, consistent source of information for media, conferences, etc. - in essence a "watchdog group" that wants scientific facts, not emotional reactions, to determine public policy. When considering the formation of a TASSC-like group in Europe, we think it is important to begin where we started in the United States by identifying some key objectives Specifically, we recommend that a European TASSC be formulated to do the following:

• Preempt unilateral action against industry. .
• Associate anti-industry "scientific" studies-with broader questions about government research and regulations.
• Link the tobacco issue with other more "politically correct" products.
• Have non-industry messengers provide reasons for legislators, business executives and media to view policies drawn from unreliable scientific studies with extreme caution.

To achieve those objectives, we encourage a TASSC group in Europe to focus on a few key messages, such as: (i) science should never be corrupted to achieve political ends; (ii) economic growth cannot afford to be held hostage to paternalistic, overregulation; and (iii) improving indoor air quality is a laudable goal that will never be accomplished as long as tobacco smoke is the sole focus of regulators. Obviously, each of the messages needs to be modified to be useful in each of the European nations.

INTEREST AND SUPPORT IN EUROPE FOR THE ISSUE OF SOUND SCIENCE
Already, there are several opportunities to establish TASSC in Europe. We have had extensive conversations with our Grey/GCI network in Europe, which encompasses offices in 33 cities and 19 countries. They also are confident that scientists and businesses can be attracted to the group if it is positioned in a credible manner

As a starting point, we can identify key issues requiring sound scientific research and scientists that may have an interest in them. Some issues our European colleagues suggest include:

• Global warming
• Nuclear waste disposal
• Diseases and pests in agricultural products for transborder trade
• Biotechnology
• Eco-labelling for EC products
• Food processing and packaging

In each of these issues, there has been considerable discussion as to whether sound science is being used as a basis for these decisions. The diversity of these issues, and their tremendous impact upon business and industry, provides an excellent "tie-in" to the work TASSC is currently undertaking in the United States.

The document leaves no doubt : global warming scepticism was nothing but one of the many issues the tobacco industry hoped to use in a broad attack on science. It also explains why so many leading climate sceptics (Singer, Milloy, …) have their toots in the tobacco industry. The effort to create a European branch of TASSC finally would result in the ESEF organisation of Frits Böttcher. It is in this circle of lobby groups the Heidelberg Appeal has its roots.
In 1993 in Holland an organisation was found called Foundation Heidelberg Appeal Netherlands (HAN), and which would quickly work together with Böttchers Global Institute. HAN would later on become one of the organisations to form De Groene Rekenkamer, therefore i’m going to spent some more time on them in another post.

Frits Böttcher

Roots of Dutch climate skepticism series, part 5
Next in the history of Dutch climate skeptics series is a man with an extraordinary CV : Carl Johan Friedrich (Frits) Böttcher.

After WW2, Böttcher (1915-2008) was a professor at Leiden University where he was teaching the remarkable combination of Chemistry and Graphology.

He had to give up the latter though around 1960 because by then the pressure of the academic world, considering graphology to be pseudo-scientific nonsense, became too big.

Somewhere in the 50's Böttcher also found the time to become a part-time scientific advisor for Shell. A position he'd keep for the next 30 years.

European Science and Environment Forum

The Club of Rome
In 1963 Böttcher, having professional contacts with the Dutch ministry of education, told them he was surprised there was so little interest in the forthcoming conference of the just found OECD. This ultimately resulted in the ministry asking him to lead the delegation.

By that time he also became the first president of the Dutch Advisory Board for Science-Policy. In this position, he and some delegation- leaders from other countries were invited by the OECD to a conference on the results of population growth.

As a result of this involvement, Böttcher would become one of the founding fathers of the resulting Club of Rome, which in 1972 would publish the famous Limiths to Growth report.

It's considered to be one of the world's first expressions of a serious ecological concerns towards the future. It would also be one of the first to be attacked by environmental skeptics :-)


The quote
When his membership of the Dutch scientific board ended (1976), Böttcher started The Global Institute for the Study of Natural Resources. The financial resources for the institute were Shell and the automobile industry.

In the beginning of the 90's, Böttcher became a vocal climate skeptic. After a TV-debate in which Böttcher declared there's no CO2-problem, Lucas Reijnders said to Frits Böttcher : "You know very well yourself what you said is incorrect" to which Böttcher gave the legendary answer "yeah i know, but i'm against nuclear energy"



Big Tobacco Lobby
In 1994 (at age 79 !) Böttcher started the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), together with Roger Bate and John Emsley. ESEF declared that, in order to remain independent, it would only accept funding from the sales of its publications. Two years later, Roger Bate would ask Philip Morris for a £50,000 grant.

ESEF is linked, via shared staff (Julian Morris and Roger Bate) and a shared web server, to the International Policy Network and the Sustainable Development Network.

ESEF can be considered as a European version of Steve Milloy's The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). The aim of the now defunct ESEF was to bring tobacco advocacy into a larger field of environmental issues, like the ban on growth hormone for livestock (in Europe, it's illegal), restrictions on pesticides, etc.

In 1998, the academic members of lobby tool ESEF contained a lot of well known climate skeptics. Read and weep : Sallie Baliunas, Robert C. Balling, Sherwood Idso, Patrick J. Michaels, Harry N.A. Priem, Michel Salomon (the author of the Heidelberg appeal), S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Gerd-Rainer Weber, while Richard S. Courtney was listed as a bussiness member.

Böttcher in his turn would become a member of the advisory board of S. Fred Singers Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Böittcher would publish two books on the subject of climate change :

• Science and fiction of the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide, The Global Institute for the Study of Natural Resources, 1992,
• CO2, Klimabedrohung oder Politik? (in English : CO2, climate fraud or politics?), samen met H. Metzner, Paul Haupt, 1994

Böttcher called global warming a conspiracy involving a few hundreds of scientists and politicians.


The Heidelberg Appeal
It is in this environment of Big Tobacco lobbygroups like ESEF & TASSC that the Heidelberg Appeal would arise. Which is material for the next episode in the series.

The Heidelberg Appeal would lead into a Dutch division called Stichting Heidelberg Appeal Nederland (stichting HAN) which would become one of Hollands prominent anti-environmental groups.

HAN soon start to coöperate with Böttchers aforementioned private tool The Global Institute for the Study of Natural Resources and in 1997 they would start the Science and Society Forum (SSF). In a 2007 interview Böttcher stated the global institute still existed on it's own with one employee.

Frits Böttcher passed away on november 23, 2008.