Cross-posted from Media Matters with permission, view original here.
A Media Matters analysis reveals that The Wall Street Journal‘s editorials on acid rain mirrored misleading talking points featured in coal industry advertisements running elsewhere in the paper in the 1980s. The Journal also heavily promoted the claims of one particular industry consultant that was on the wrong side of science on acid rain, secondhand smoke and climate change. Years later, as industry groups orchestrate efforts to cast doubt on the science demonstrating health and climate impacts of fossil fuel use, the Journal continues to aid theirย efforts.
The Wall Street Journal Echoed Misleading Acid Rain Claims From Coal Industryย Ads
In the winter of 1981, the Coalition for Environmental-Energy Balance, aย front group for the coal industry,ย ranย severalย advertisementsย inย The Wall Street Journalย defending the industry’s emissions of sulfur dioxide, which were contributing to acid rain. The ads cast doubt on the threat of acid rain, warned about the cost of regulation, and claimed that calls for action to address sulfur dioxide emissions were politically motivated.ย The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial board used these same rhetorical tactics to forestall action on acid rain, as aย previousย Media Mattersย analysisย found.
1) ‘We Don’t Know Enough’: Anย adย by the Coalition for Environmental-Energy Balance that ran inย The Wall Street Journalย and other papers in November 1981 claimed that the primary causes of acid rain โcannot be stated with certainty.โ Shortly after, in 1982, aย Wall Streetย Journalย editorial stated: โScientific study, as opposed to political rhetoric, points more and more toward the theory that nature, not industry, is the primary source of acid rain.โ Casting doubt on the science behind acid rain was an industry-wide strategy: anย adย by Ingersoll-Rand Mining Machinery that ran in theย Journalย in 1985 claimed that acid rain is โmostly natural rather than industrial in originโ and said it is โprobably wrongโ that acid rain โthreatens forest in the Easternย U.S.โ
2) ‘It Will Cost Too Much’: The coalition ads claimed that addressing acid rain could cause electric bills for Midwest consumers to increase by โas much as 50%,โ and Ingersoll-Randย claimedย that legislation would be โprohibitively expensive,โ costing โbillions.โ In 1990, theย Journalย cited the Edison Electric Institute โ an industry group โ to say that electric utility costs would โsurelyโ beย โstaggering.โ
3) ‘It’s All Politics’: A coalitionย adย attempted to obscure the science on acid rain by saying, โSome of the information [you hear about acid rain] is scientific, much of it is opinion.โ In 1983, theย Journalย stated โpolitics, not science, clearly is driving the acid-rainย campaign.โ
But the industry’s claims about the state of the science on acid rain were out of step with the knowledge at the time. A report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development had connected acid rain to fossil fuel use yearsย earlier:
And theย Journal‘s claims that addressing acid rain would be too costly did not stand the test of time: the acid rain program isย widely seenย today as a measure that successfully mitigated the problem at aย costย much lower than industry and governmentย estimates.
The Revolving Door Consultant And Theย Journal
In February 1982,ย The Wall Streetย Journalย ran anย adย by the Edison Electric Institute, an organization that represents many companies that generate coal-fired electricity, which emphasized that the science on acid rain is โincompleteโ and offered a free โfact bookโ on acidย rain.
The Wall Street Journalย later recommended the coal industry’s โfact book,โ promoting the booklet’s claims in five paragraphs of an eight paragraph editorial in Augustย 1984:
We recommend that the EPA weigh every word on that five-foot shelf [of public comments] carefully, over, say, the next 20 to 200 years. For the preliminary finding it might try a 49-page booklet, โUnderstanding Acid Rain,โ by Alan W. Katzenstein, a technical consultant to the Edison Electric Institute. The EEI is, of course, a very interested party, but that doesn’t make Mr. Katzenstein’s four-year analysis of scientific and pseudoscientific work any lessย interesting.
The editorial highlighted the booklet’s claim that the โprimaryโ source of acidity in lakes was the decaying organic matter on the forest floor โ even though by that point the National Research Council hadย linkedย coal plantย emissions of sulfur dioxide and acid rain, and President Ronald Reagan’s own scientific panel had said that failing to regulate these emissions riskedย irreversible damage.
And a few months earlier the Journalย had published an op-ed by the booklet’s author, Katzenstein, who also highlighted his claim that the primary source of acidity in lakes was organic matter. A forest ecologist responded in a letter to the editor that Katzenstein โmade several assertionsโ about research findings that the ecologist had been involved in and โall of them are incorrect!โ After correcting Katzenstein on several points, the ecologist added: โThese results have been published widely. It is apparent that Mr. Katzenstein’s sole purpose is to confuse the acid rainย issue.โ
Why was the Journal publicizing an industry consultant’s claims about science? Katzenstein was not a scientist โ he was aย public affairs consultantย and mediaย representativeย for various industries. The extent of his science background was aย bachelor’s degreeย with a โbackground in chemical and biological sciences,โ according to hisย biography.
Theย New York Timesย andย Washington Postย also ran the EEI ad, but never cited Katzenstein, according to a Nexis search. The Associated Press quoted Kaztzenstein questioning whether any policy would reduce acid rain in a 1984ย article.
Katzenstein later became aย consultant to the Tobacco Instituteย andย Lorillard Tobacco Co.ย In that capacity, Katzensteinย told the mediaย that โthere’s no credible evidence โ no convincing evidence โ that your health is in jeopardy if people are smoking around you.โ Heย even claimed thatย secondhand smoke could be good for us: โcigarette smoke really serves a purpose as an early warning signal that ventilation is inadequate,โ following aย memoย from the Tobacco Institute’s Viceย President.
Theย Journalย andย The New York Timesย both publishedย letters to the editorย from Katzenstein questioning the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, without disclosing his ties to the tobacco industry. The science showing thatย secondhand smokeย causes heart disease, lung cancer, and many other health problems only grew stronger, and later studies found that the public smoking bans had significantย health benefits.
But Katzenstein again tried to debate scientific findings from the world’s top experts. In 1994 theย Journalย published anotherย letter to the editorย from Katzenstein, this time claiming that there โare increasing doubts among scientists that global warming is a real threat to our planetโ and emphasizing natural carbon dioxide emissions. Theย Journalย did not identify Katzenstein, and it is unclear if he was still working for Edison Electric Institute. Katzenstein died less than a year later according to aย New York Timesย notice.
Fool Me Twice โฆ Theย Journalย Continues To Push Industryย Claims
Despite the fossil fuel industry’s history of distorting facts to bend public opinion,ย The Wall Street Journalย continues to stand with the industry on the wrong side of science. In recent years, the paper has helpedย industry groups spread misinformationย about the science demonstrating health impacts and dangerous manmade climateย change:
- Aย Wall Street Journalย op-ed by twoย industry-fundedย โexpertsโ denied the health dangers posed by mercury emissions from coalย plants.
- Aย Wall Street Journalย op-ed by 16 scientists, several of whom haveย links to fossil fuel interestsย and most of whom have not published peer-reviewed climate research, argued against doing โsomething dramaticโ to address climate change. The op-ed cited a paper partially funded by the American Petroleumย Institute.
- Aย Wall Street Journalย editorialย claimed that โClimategateโ showed temperature records were โrigged.โ Every one of theย investigationsย into โClimategateโ has found that the scientists did not manipulate data to exaggerate global warming, and aย studyย by a previously skeptical scientist reconfirmed the temperatureย record.
- Aย Wall Street Journalย column suggested thatย one year’sย snowpack showed global warming was not โrealย science.โ
- And theย Wall Street Journal‘s editorial board has repeatedly claimed that climate science isย โdisputableโ:
Information about advertisements and Wall Street Journal content included in this analysis were retrieved from ProQuest and Factiva, respectively. The ads featured in this report and more can be seen in a new slideshow and archive byย Greenpeace.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts