On January 16, theย Los Angeles Timesย revealedย that anti-science bills have been popping up over the past several years in statehouses across the U.S.,ย mandating the teaching of climate change denial or โskepticismโ as a credible โtheoretical alternativeโ to human caused climate changeย came.
Theย L.A. Times’ Neela Banerjeeย explained,
โTexas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in theย classroom.โ
What the excellentย Timesย coverage missed is that key language in these anti-science bills all eminatedย from a single source: theย American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.
ALEC Exposed: No, Not Alecย Baldwin*ย
In summer 2011, โALEC Exposed,โ a project of theย Center for Media and Democracyย (CMD)**, taught those alarmed about the power that corporations wield in the American political sphere an important lesson: when bills with a similar DNA pop up in various statehouses nationwide, it’s noย coincidence.ย
Explaining the nature and origins of the project,ย CMD wrote, โ[CMD] unveiled a trove of over 800 ‘model’ bills and resolutions secretly voted on by corporations and politicians through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). These bills reveal the corporate collaboration reshaping our democracy, state byย state.โ
CMD continued, โBefore our publication of this trove of bills, it has been difficult to trace the numerous controversial and extreme provisions popping up in legislatures across the country directly to ALEC and its corporateย underwriters.โ
CMD explained that ALEC conducts its operations in the most shadowy of manners (emphasesย mine):
โThrough ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line.ย Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC.ย Corporationsย sit on all nine ALEC task forces andย vote with legislators to approve ‘model’ billsโฆCorporations fund almost all of ALEC‘s operations.ย Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans,ย then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovationsโwithout disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on theย bills.โ
So, what is the name of the โmodel billโ this timeย around?
The Trojan Horse: The โEnvironmental Literacy Improvementย Actโ
Theย Trojan Horseย in this case is anย Orwellianย titled model bill, the โEnvironmental Literacy Improvement Act.โ[PDF]
The bill was adopted by ALEC‘s Natural Resources Task Force, today known as theย Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force,ย at ALEC‘s Spring Task Force Summit on May 5, 2000 โ it was then approved byย the full ALEC Board of Directors in June ofย 2000.
The bill’s opening clauseย readsย [PDF], โThe purpose of this act is to enhance and improve the environmental literacy of students and citizens in the state by requiring that all environmental education programs and activities conducted by schools, universities, and agenciesย shallโฆโ
Among other things, the bill stipulates that schools, universities and agenciesย should,ย
- โProvide a range of perspectives presented in a balancedย manner.โ
- โProvide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific and economicย controversies.โย
- โBe presented in language appropriate for education rather than forย propagandizing.โ
- โEncourage students to explore different perspectives and form their ownย opinions.โ
- โEncourage an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to newย ideas.โ
- โNot be designed to change student behavior, attitudes orย values.โย
- โNot include instruction in political action skills nor encourage political actionย activities.โ
How does this language compare with legislation passed or proposed in various states? A review is inย order.
ALEC Bills: From Model toย Reality
Theย โEnvironmental Literacy Improvement Act,โ or at minimum, the crucial language found within it, has been proposed in seven states, and passed in three states, Louisiana in 2008, Texas in 2009 and South Dakota inย 2010.
Louisiana
In 2008, the Louisiana state legislature introduced and eventually passed S.B. 733, theย Louisiana Science and Education Act. The bill was originally sponsored by four members of the Senate, three of whom are currentย dues paying members of ALEC: Sen. Ben Wayne Nevers, Sr. (D-12);ย Sen. Neil Riser (R-32); andย Sen. Francis Thompsonย (D-34).
The three ALEC members received a total of $9,514 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles in campaign money combined, and the four of them together received $13,814 in campaign cash from the oil and gas industry, according to theย National Institute on Money in State Politics’ FollowTheMoney.org.
ALEC Model vs. S.B.ย 733
Theย Louisiana billย calls for, โan environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied includingโฆglobal warmingโฆโ The bill also calls for โinstructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objectiveย manner.โ
This bill mirrors the provisions of theย ALEC billย whichย say that teachers should โprovide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientificโฆcontroversies,โ and mandates that โbalanced and objective environmental education materials and programs willโฆbeย used.โ
Southย Dakota
In 2010, the South Dakota Legislative Assembly passedย House Concurrent Resolution 1009, a non-binding resolution introduced by 33 members of the House of Representatives and 6 members of the Senate, 39 in total, and 12 of whom are current members of ALEC. Theย billย calls for โbalanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of Southย Dakota.โ
Theย 12 members of ALECย who sponsoredย HCR 1009ย received $1,900 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles combined, according to FollowTheMoney.org.
The bill mirrors the provision of theย ALEC billย that call for the providing of โa range of perspectives presented in a balancedย manner.โ
Kentucky
In 2010, the Kentucky state legislature proposed H.B. 397, theย Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act, a bill that eventuallyย failed to pass.
The bill was co-sponsored by two members of the Kentucky House of Representatives who were not members of ALEC, but one of whom, Tim Moore (R-26), took $3,000 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles combined, according to theย National Institute on Money in State Politics.
ALEC Model vs. HBย 397
Two key provisions of theย H.B. 397ย โencourage local district teachers and administrators to foster an environment promoting objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theoriesโ and โallow teachers to use, as permitted by the local board of education, materials in addition to state-approved texts and instructional materials for discussion of scientific theories includingโฆglobalย warmingโฆโ
This bill mirrors major provisions of theย ALEC model billย that say teachers should โprovide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientificโฆcontroversies,โ and mandates that โbalanced and objective environmental education materials and programs willโฆbeย used.โ
Newย Mexico
In 2011,ย ALEC member, Rep. Thomas A. Anderson, introducedย H.B. 302. In the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, he raised $2,650, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics’ campaign financeย database.
ALEC Model vs. H.B.ย 302
H.B. 302 says that schools shall โnot prohibit any teacher, when a controversial scientific topic is being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to that topic.โ One โcontroversial scientific topicโ listed is the โcauses of climateย change.โ
This bill mirrors the provisions of theย ALEC model billย which call for teaching โa range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner,โ teaching โdifferent perspectivesโ to allow for students to โform their own opinions,โ and creating an โatmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to newย ideas.โ
Tennessee
Tennessee’s House bill,ย H.B. 368, essentially aย replicaย of the ALEC model bill,ย overwhelmly passed the Houseย in April 2011, but its Senate-version cousin,ย S.B. 893, failed to pass. As theย Los Angeles Timesย article makes clear, efforts to push the bill through are far fromย over.
Key clauses of that billย read,
- โ[T]eachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective mannerย the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.โ
- โ[P]ublic elementary and secondary schoolsโฆ[should]โฆrespond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversialย issues.โย
These excerpts match, almost to a โT,โ bullet points one, three and four of theย ALEC model bill.ย ย
Nine of the 24ย co-sponsors of the H.B. 368ย are ALEC members, according to CMD‘sย ALEC Members database.
In addition, these nine ALEC member co-sponsors received $8,695 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry combined in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, according to FollowTheMoney.org. The other 15 sponsors of the bill, while not members of ALEC, received $10,400 in their campaign cofffers in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cyclesย combined.
S.B. 893, on the other hand, wasย sponsoredย by Sen. Bo Watson (R-11), a recipient of $1,800 in oil and gas industry money in the 2008 and 2010 election cyclesย combined.
Translation: between the 25 of them, on top of a model bill handed to them by corporate oil and gas industry lobbyists, they were also furnished with $20,895 in campaign cash by these industries with the expectation to do their legislativeย bidding.
Oklahoma
Titled, the โScientific Education and Academic Freedom Act,โย H.B. 1551ย is also essentially a copycat of Tennessee’s version of theย ALEC model billย โ it failed to pass. A Senate version of that bill,ย S.B. 320, was also proposed in 2009, butย failed to passย throughย committee.
Key clauses of that bill read (emphasesย mine),
- โ[T]eachers shall be permitted to help students understand,ย analyze, critique, and review in an objective mannerย the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course beingย taught.โ
- โ[N]o student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientificย theories.โ
Notice how the first bullet is exactly the same in both the Tennessee and Oklahoma bills โ also notice how similar bullet number two is in both language and substance in both states’ย bills.
Rep. Sally Kern (R-84),ย sponsor of H.B. 1551, is aย member of ALEC, according to CMD. She received $12,335 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, in total, according to FollowTheMoney.org. Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-34),ย sponsor of S.B. 320, while not a member of ALEC, received $22,967 from the oil and gas industry while running and losing for Governor of Oklahoma in 2010, according toย FollowTheMoney.org.
On the whole, sponsors and co-sponsors from the six states in which the ALEC bill was proposed were recipients of $44,409 in campaign money from the oil and gas industry, a miniscule down payment for some of the most lucrative corporations known in the history ofย mankind.
Texas
Texas, in this case, is a bit of a wild card. Rather than a bill proposed by a state legislature, in 2009, the Texas School Board passed an amendent calling for the โbalancedโ teaching of climate change, meaning both science andย โskepticism.โ
Theย Austin Statesmanย explained,
โThe State Board of Educationโฆadopted standards on the teaching of global warming that appear to both question its existence and prod students to explore itsย implications.
Standards are used to guide textbook makers andย teachers.
Languageโฆinstructed students to ‘analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of globalย warming,’โโฆ
This provision mirrors and is likely inspired by the ALEC model bill provision on global warming, which suggested science teachers should โProvide a range of perspectives presented in a balancedย manner.โ
A Bill In the Corporate Polluter’sย Interest
The money paper trail for this ALEC model bill runs deep, to put itย bluntly.ย
When the ALEC model bill was adopted in 2000 byย ALEC‘sย Natural Resources Task Force, the head of that committee wasย Sandy Liddy Bourne, who after that stint, became Director of Legislation and Policy for ALEC. She isย now with theย Heartland Instituteย asย vice-president for policy strategy. In Sandy Liddy Bourne’s bio on the Heartland website, she boasts that โUnder her leadership, 20 percent of ALEC model bills were enacted by one state or more, up from 11ย percent.โย
SourceWatchย states that Liddy Bourne โโฆis the daughter of former Nixon aide and convicted Watergate criminal G. Gordon Liddy, who spent more than 52 months in prison for his part in the Watergate burglaryโฆ[and her] speech at the Heartland Institute’s 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was titled, ‘The Kyoto Legacy; The Progeny of a Carbon Cartel in the States.โ
Theย Heartland Instituteย was formerly heavily funded by ExxonMobil andย Koch Industries, justย like ALECย was at the time that Liddy Bourne’s committee devised theย โEnvironmental Literacy Improvement Act.โย These two corporations are infamous for their funding of climate change โskepticโ think tanks and front groups.ย ย
Today, theย corporate polluter membersย of ALEC‘sย Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Forceย include representatives fromย American Electric Power, theย Fraser Institute, theย Cato Institute, theย Competitive Enterprise Institute, theย Institute for Energy Research, theย Mackinac Center for Public Policy, theย Heartland Institute, and theย American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, to nameย several.
Getting Them While They’re Young: A Cynicalย Maneuverย
In the United States, the politics of big-money backed disinformation campaigns have trumped climate science, and serves as theย raison d’รชtreย for DeSmogBlog. Polluters with a financial interest in continuing to conduct business without any accountability for their global warming pollution have purposelyย sowed the seeds of confusionย on an issue seen as completely uncontroversial amongย scientists.
Maneuvering to dupe schoolchildren is about as cynical as it gets.ย Neuroscience explains that young brains areย like sponges, ready to soak in knowledge (and disinformation, for that matter), and thus, youth are an ideal target for the โmerchants of doubt.โ
The corporations behind the writing and dissemination of this ALEC model bill, who are among the largest polluters in the world, would benefit handsomly from a legislative mandate to sow the seeds of confusion on climate science amongย schoolchildren.
Alas, at the very least, the identity of the Trojan Horse has been revealed: it’s name is ALEC.
*Sorry Alec Baldwin, this isn’t about you, please resume your Words With Friends. This ALEC is far moreย scandalous.
**Full Disclosure: At the time of the ALEC Exposed project’s public release in mid-2011, Steve Horn was an employee of Center for Media andย Democracy.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts