From strategy to networks to personnel to rhetoric, the fossil fuel regime's efforts to deny and delay come straight out of big tobacco's playbook. The historical record is incontrovertible. As we summarize in a recent report, the fossil fuel industry's own internal documents reveal that it has been studying CO 2 pollution for more than 60 years. As early as the 1950s, it knew its products had the potential to change the climate. By the late 1970s and early 80s, Exxon scientists were explicitly aware that burning fossil fuels could lead to what they called "catastrophic" global warming. In 1986, an internal "greenhouse effect working group" at Shell concluded: "The changes in climate … may be the greatest in recorded history. " But instead of taking action or warning the public, fossil fuel interests stayed quiet. Then, in the late 1980s and early 90s, when global warming finally caught the world's attention, the carbon majors sprang to action and took the low road, spending billions of dollars over the next 30 years on advertising and lobbying challenging science, slandering scientists and attacking policies to protect their profits.
A shuffle to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) independent board of science advisers will add a longtime consultant who has worked for the tobacco and chemicals industries while promoting a member listed as someone "not to pick" by the Union of Concerned Scientists to be the panel's chair. The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is meant to serve as an outside sounding board on the agency's actions, with 40 or so of the nation's top scientists weighing in on the scientific backing behind a number of policy proposals. But the board has shifted under the Trump administration, adding more members with ties to industry and fewer members with an academic background, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office. That follows a move by prior EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt Edward (Scott) Scott Pruitt Scientific integrity, or more hot air? OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Biden proposes billions for electric vehicles, building retrofitting| EPA chief to replace Trump appointees on science advisory panels | Kerry to travel to UAE, India to discuss climate change EPA chief to replace Trump appointees on science advisory panels MORE barring academics from serving on the board if they received agency grants for their research.
The tobacco industry was heavily regulated in the 1990s and early 2000s after a series of class-action lawsuits about the addictive nature of tobacco, but the FDA took a largely hands-off approach to e-cigarettes, health professionals say. The FDA insists it did what it could to keep up with what was a massive shift in tobacco consumption habits, including creating the Center for Tobacco Products in 2009. That same year, an effort to create further oversight was slowed down by a court case the agency lost to Sottera Inc., an importer and distributor of vaping devices. In August 2016, the agency gave the Center for Tobacco Products' regulatory authority to consider all vaping products as tobacco products, but no action was taken against flavored products. Agency officials were studying whether flavors could help smokers quit traditional cigarettes. • This article is based in part on wire service reports. Sign up for Daily Newsletters