The Heritage Foundation

Institutional Analysis #24

May 15, 1983

May 15, 1983 | Institutional Analysis on

The Global 2000 Juggernaut

(Archived document, may contain errors)

24

May 13, 1983

THE "GLOBAL 2000" JUGGERNAUT

INTRODUCTION

The first days in June will see a major public event by the Global Tomorrow Coalition, a large and well-publicized Washington conference with highly paid speakers such as ex-President Jimmy Carter. This is clearly an attempt to show the muscle of the environmental lobby. It is likely to be politically impressive and effective.

.The Global Tomorrow Coalition is the spearhead of the recently evolved Global 2000 movement. Very large and with vast resources, it is a central element in the environmentalist lobby, which many experts say is the most powerful in Washington. This lobby helps determine how policymakers and the press view the options available for addressing some of the Nation's most pressing problems. The trouble is that the Global 2000 movement rests on a base of faulty analysis--the 1980 Global 2000 Report to the President. Almost all economists, agricultural economists, and statisti- cians who have examined that Report--as well as some environmenta- lists such as Rene Dubos--consider it to be fatally flawed in method, lacking in historical foundation, and misleading in its conclusions about the global "trends" it purports to describe (e.g., Dubos, 1981; Kahn and Schneider, 1981; Clawson, 1981; Simon,,1981). The Global 2000 RePort proclaimed, with official U.S. govern- meht imprimatur, ETTa-t-the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Some paragraphs in this article have been drawn from the author's article, Global Confusion 2000, in the Winter 1981 issue of The Public Interest. We appreciate permission from the editors of that journal to use that material. Reported Time: "The U.S. Government has added its full voice to the chorus of environmental Cassandras... a presidential panel warns that time is fast running out for averting a global calamity." President Jimmy Carter requested that Global 2000 study. It was co-chaired by the Council on Environmental Quality and the Depart- ment of State, while eleven agencies "cooperated," including the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and Interior, the Agency for International Development, the CIA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and three other less well-known agencies.

This was the report's own thumbnail summary of the Global 2000 findings:

If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. Serious stresses involving population, resources, and environment are clearly visible ahead. Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today.

For hundreds of millions of the desperately poor, the outlook for food and other necessities of life will be no better. For many it will be worse. Barring revolu- tionary advances in technology, life for most people on earth will be more precarious in 2000 than it is now.

Fortunately for this planet, these gloomy assertions about resources and environment are baseless. The facts point in quite the opposite direction on every important aspect of their predic- tion for which there are data. Among Global 2000's unsupported and fallacious statements:

"More polluted." Global 2000 asserts that the world is getting more polluted. But it cites no systematic data for the world or even for regions. In the richer countries, there is solid evidence that air pollution has been declining. Figure 1 shows the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) new Pollutant Standard Index for the U.S., and Figure 2 shows one key measure of air quality for which data are available since 1960; they make clear that the benign trend has been under way for some time and did not arise solely with the onset of the environmental movement around 1970. Water quality, too, has improved in the richer countries. Figure 3 shows the improvements in drinkability of water in the U.S. since 1961. (For the poorer countries no data seem readily available.)

11 ... resources... If Global 2000 projected a five percent yearly increase in the real price of nonfuel minerals until the year 2000. There has always been "serious stress" in the sense that people have to pay a price to get the resources they want. But the relevant economic measures of stress--costs and prices-- show that the long-run trend is toward less scarcity and lower prices rather than more scarcity and higher prices, hard as that may be to believe. The cost trends of almost every natural resource have been downward over the course of recorded history.

An hour's work in the United States has bought increasingly more copper, wheat, and oil (which are representative and important raw materials) from 1800 to the present. (See, for example, Figure 4.) And the same trend almost surely has held throughout human history. Calculations of expenditures for raw materials as a falling proportion of total family budgets make the same point even more strongly. These trends imply..that the raw materials have become increasingly available and less scarce, relative to the most important and most fundamental element of economic life, human work-time. The prices of raw materials have even been falling relative to consumer goods and the Consumer Price Index. All the items in the Consumer Price Index have been produced with increasingly efficient use of labor and capital over the years, but the decrease in cost of raw materials has been even greater than that of other goods. This is a very strong demonstration of progressively decreasing scarcity and increasing availability of raw materials.

"The outlook for food ... will be no better." Consumption of food per person in the worla @is up over the last 30 years (Figure 5). And there are no data showing that the bottom of the income scale is faring worse, or even has failed to share in the general improvement, as the average has improved. Africa's food production per capita is down, but no one considers that to be related to physical conditions; it clearly stems from governmental and other social factors. Famine deaths have decreased in the past century even in absolute terms, let alone relative to population, a matter that pertains particularly to the poor countries. World food prices have been trending lower for decades and centuries (Figure 6), and there is strong reason to believe that this trend will continue. This evidence runs exactly counter to Global 2000's conclusion that "real prices for food are expected to double." If a problem exists, it is a problem caused by abundance. Food production in the U.S. is now so great that the farmers are suffering economically. Food stocks in the world are so high that they are causing major problems (Figure 7). Agricultural yields per hectare have continued to rise in such countries as China, France, and the United States. And these gains in produc- tion have been accomplished with a decreasing proportion of the labor force occupied in agriculture--the key input for and con- straint upon the economic system. A forthcoming study sponsored by The Heritage Foundation, written by widely respected experts, addresses the topics covered by Global 2000. This study will document the fallaciousness of Global 2000's conclusions.

THE GLOBAL 2000 MOVEMENT

The Global 2000 movement has affected deeply the national policies of the United States and other nations. This is clear from speeches by President Carter and other officials in his Administration and in various congressional hearings. For example, in his inaugural address Jimmy Carter said, referring to resources, that "even our great nation has its recognized limits." On the other hand, Ronald Reagan's election-eve address quoted from John Wayne on his deathbed: "Just give the American people a good cause, and there's nothing they can't lick." But the Reagan Administration has had great difficulty in translating this view into action because of the enormous bureaucratic momentum to implement the limits-to-growth philosophy.

As of October 1982, the Global Tomorrow Coalition reckoned some 5 million persons enrolled in its 49 participating member organizations. These groups run the alphabet of environmental and population organizations.1

The member organizations of the Coalition have on their boards of directors a Who's Who of influential figures in businessf law, foundations, and especially the media. For example, the first six of the 42 persons on the Advisory Council of the Popula- tion Institute include: Lord Caradon, Arthur Ashe, Isaac Asimov, Joan Baez, George W. Ball, and Simone de Beauvoir. The Global 2000 movement includes the elite Year 2000 Committee consisting

Action for World Development. Alan Guttmacher Institute. American Farm Foundation. American Institute for Biological Sciences. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Audubon Naturalist Society of Central Atlantic States. Bolton Institute for a Sustainable Future. Carrying Capacity. Center for Law & Social Policy. Concern, Inc. Conservation Foundation. Defenders of Wildlife. Environmental Coalition of North America. Environmental Defense Fund. Environmental Fund. Environmental Policy Center. Environmental Policy Institute. Federation for American Immigration Reform. Friends of the Earth. Greater Caribbean Energy & Environment Foundation. International Institute for Environment & Development. Izaak Walton League. League of Women Voters. Monitor International. National Audubon Society. National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association. National Wildlife Federation. Natural Resources Defense Council. Negative Population Growth. New York Zoological Society. Ohio Conservation Foundation. Overseas Development Council. Planned Parenthood of New York City. Population Crisis Committee. Population Communication. Population Institute. Population Resource Center. Population Services International. Rachel Carson Council. Renewable Natural Resources Foundation. Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference. Sierra Club. Texas Committee on Natural Resources. Trust for Public Land. U.S. Association for the Club of Rome. U.S. Women's Health Coalition. Wilderness Society. Windstar Foundation. World Population Soceity. Zero Population Growth. of: Co-chairmen Robert 0. Anderson of the Atlantic Richfield Corporation and Russell Train of the World Wildlife Fund (U.S.); Walter Cronkite; ex-President of the World Bank Robert S. McNamara; former secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (now Health and Human Services) Elliot Richardson; former secretary of State Cyrus Vance; Marian Heiskell of The New York Times; Robert Blake; Lester Brown; Adrian DeWind of the Na-tu-r-al Resources Defense Council; Hans Landsberg; Roger Revelle; S. Dillon Ripley, Head of the Smithsonian Institution; William Ruckelshaus; Henry Schacht of Cummins Engine; John Sewell; and George Zeidenstein, President of the Population Council.

The movement presently has a number of bills and resolutions before Congress. S. 1771, the Global Resources, Environment, and Population Act,_ffUeRcTaires as national policy the coordination of research on global trends and projections" and "government-wide compliance" and "coordination of federal efforts to base decision making on these analyses." It provides for using "all practiceable means, including financial and technical assistance... for the achievement of U.S. population stabilization."

H.R. 907 is much the same as S. 1771, but would set up an Office of Population Policy in the-Ex-ecutive office of the Presi- dent.

H. Con. Res 276 and S. Con. Res. 197 resolve that "the executive bran-c-S -should begin to systematically coordinate and improve its projections of world population, resource, and environ- mental trends and their analysis, as outlined in the Global 2000 study." In addition, there is the "Year 2000 Committee Legislative Initiative," which calls for regular reports of the Executive Branch, the General Accounting Office, and the office of Technology Assessment. The influence of Global 2000 on these legislative initiatives is evident in a letter from Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) to Senator William Roth (R-Del.). (See Appendix I.) In it, Hatfield calls for the creation of a Council on Global Resources to unify government planning in the areas of natural resources, environment, and population policy. This is potentially a dangerous centralization of power. "The main impetus for this legislation," wrote Hatfield, "was the publication of the Global 2000 Report to the President."

The member organizations of the Global Tomorrow Coalition have a large number of staff members in Washington, many of whom lobby the Congress and the executive branch. Consider, for example, the Natural Resources Defense Council: 23 attorneys (13 in Washington, D.C.), 3 "scientists," 15 "resource specialists," 6 "consultants," 7 persons in "development" (which probably means fundraising), 2 in "membership," 3 in accounting, 27 support staff, 2 "helpers," 6 "interns," and 6 "administrators." And it is just one of the 49 organizations in the Global Tomorrow Coalition. Altogether, there now are over 80 registered environmental lobbyists on Capitol Hill, compared to two or three in the late 1960s.1 And there are five environmental political action committees, one of which--The League of Conservation Voters--had a budget of 2 almost $900,000 to back about 70 candidates in the 1982 elections.

States the Population Action Council, a division of the Population Institute, in a 1982 report:

P.A.C.'s efforts to educate the freshman class of Senators and Representatives on the problem of overpop- ulation and the U.S. role in the solution to these problems will be greatly intensified during the next three to four post-election months. Our legislative division has already embarked on a campaign to alert congressional and senatorial candidates (excluding incumbents) about the work of the Population Action Council. Each candidate is receiving a packet including PAC information, an offer of a population briefing once they're elected, and population fact sheets. our past experience shows that this type of campaign can be a smashing success: 94% of the 1980 freshman class were briefed within the first few months following their victories! (Italics in original.)3'-

The P.A.C. report then proceeds to mobilize its national network:

IMMEDIATE ACTION

CONTACT YOUR LOCAL CANDIDATES FOR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE U.S. SENATE AND ASK THEM THEIR STAND ON U.S. SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL POPULATION ASSISTANCE.

CONTACT THE WASHINGTON P.A.C. OFFICE BY PHONE OR MAIL AND LET US KNOW OF ANY RESPONSES YOU RECEIVE.

The extent of the network is vast:

The Institute's Population Action Council also provides over 18,000 policy leaders, local activists, and editors in the U.S. and abroad with POPLINE, a monthly world population news service. POPLINE interprets population developments, opportunities, and urgencies. In addition, nearly 2,000 leaders and activists in 134 other countries have joined in with the P.A.C. program to stimulate

1 William Symonds, "Washington in the Grip of the Green Giant," Fortune, October 4, 1982, p. 138. 2 Ibid., p. 141. 3 Population Action Council, "Network Alert," no date, signed Werner Fornos. their governments and ours to more vigorous population action.4

And these efforts apparently have been successful. The Population Institute said in its report: In December,iBudget Director David Stockman proposed the elimina on of every penny of population money trom the 1983 AID budget. This action would have meant the collapse of family planning programs in much of the developing world, exactly where the population explosion which threatens the future of all of us is taking place.

The Population Institute's public policy division, the Population Action Council, responded instantly to the Stockman proposal by alerting powerful leaders in government and across the country, who appealed directly to the President and other high-level officials for restoration of the population budget. Thanks to P.A.C. initiatives, supported by others in the population community, the Administration reversed itself within 8 5 days.

By means of personnel interlocks, access to the mass media is assured for the Global Tomorrow Coalition. For example, John B. Oakes, who is on the NRDC Board of Trustees, is former senior editor and presently frequent columnist of the New York Times; his January 21, 1981, column was little more than a -rewrite of Global 2000 press handouts.

Another example of Global Tomorrow Coalition activities is the propaganda campaign of the World Wildlife Fund (not a member of the U.S. based Global Tomorrow Coalition, but of the same persuasion). Reported The Wall Street Journal:

The World Wildlife Fund is run by savvy people recruited mainly from big business, advertising and public relations ....

[T]elevision stations around the world will be asked to show a short documentary bearing the message "If we turn the world into a desert, man is doomed." That documentary reflects another of the World Wildlife Fund's connections to business: It was produced for the fund courtesy of the advertising firm of Ogilvy & Mather.

4 Population Institute fundraising letter, signed Rodney Shaw, received by the author October 22, 1982. 5 Ibid. Mr. Palmer, the WWF campaigns coordinator, says David Ogilvy of the ad agency became interested in the WWF five years ago and offered the world-wide services of his company; its London office alone is estimated to have spent $700,000 on WWF work so far....

Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was the president of the group for 15 years. 6His place has been taken by Britain's Prince Philip.

The reader's reaction may be: So what? The World Wildlife Fund probably is engaged in a laudable effort to fight real environmental threats. But the two main threats that WWF purports to fight are:

[W]e are losing one more animal, plant or insect species every 10 minutes," the World Wildlife Fund warns. "Approximately one million different species will be gone by the year 2000.11 It rates 25,000 plant and 1,000 vertebrate species as threatened with extinction....

The fund says rain forests are vanishing at a rate of 49 acres a minute.7

Both statistics are wholly wrong--unbelievably so. The only scientific evidence on actual species loss cited in the environ- mental literature--including that by Norman Myers, the central figure in the matter--is one species per year at present, rather than one species every ten minutes. The WWF claim is off by a mere 5,256,000 percent. Recent authoritative surveys done at Resources for the Future by Sedjo, Clawson, Barnes, and Allen found that the rate of decrease of forests is nowhere near the figure that WWF cites. This is a reasonable sample of the eviden- tial situation with the Global Tomorrow Coalition generally.

Various Global Tomorrow Coalition member organizations obtain large amounts of funding from, among other foundations, those shown in Appendixes II and III. The latest major foundation grant to a Global Tomorrow Coalition affiliate was $15 million by the MacArthur Foundation to Gus Speth, former head of the Council on Environmental Quality and one of the two main signatories of the Global 2000 Report. The member organizations also obtain funding from many corporations, as shown in Appendixes II and III. And over the years, massive support--hundreds of millions of dollars--has gone to them directly and indirectly from the State Department's Agency for International Development, and also from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, which itself is largely supported by the U.S. government.

6 Wall Street Journal, September 23, 1982, p. 48. 7 Ibid. On the other side, there is no organized opposition, no organization that lobbies the Congress against policies intended to produce "population stabilization" in the United States or abroad, or against measures whose object is the centralization of "foresight capability"--that is, giving a government agency funds with which to organize "research" and publicity about environmental issues and to require Congressional response. The right-to-life groups are the only organizations even philosophically in opposition. And they restrict themselves entirely to the abortion issue, thereby separating themselves from other individuals who might also oppose the initiatives of the Global 2000 movement.

BACKGROUND

Where did the Global 2000 movement come from? The Global 2000 Report to the President focused on issues raised in such 1960s and 1970s environmental writings as Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, which has been printed in millions of copies. Anne Ehrlich, Tn-fact, was one of the seven key Global 2000 advisers. The Global 2000 intellectual approach was the same as that of The Limits to Growth, of which 4 million copies were published; that work was fathered by Jay Forrester, who was an adviser to Global 2000. The Limits to Growth was followed by several other books in the same spirit sponsored by The Club of Rome whose founder, Aurelio Peccei, has an extraordinarily large and honored place in the Global 2000 Report. In 1976, the Club of Rome repudiated the conclusions of The Limits to Growth, but this repudiation has gone almost unnoticed. The Limits-to Growth-Club of Rome princi- pals were all involved in the preparation of Global 2000.

Global 2000'was the subject of full-page stories in such national news media as Time and Newsweek, and it made front-page banner headlines across the country (for example, in Champaign- Urbana, Illinois, where I live) as an "official" government study forecasting global disaster. It has been printed in over a million copies and already has been translated into six languages. Other governments, such as West Germany, have initiated their own imitative studies with similar titles in the same spirit. In the U.S., there have been Year 2000 Committees set up by several states, all in touch with the Global 2000 movement.

The formation of the Global Tomorrow Coalition is told well in the following from its first newsletter.8

The Global Tomorrow Coalition is the direct descendant of an informal, unstructured grouping of individuals who came together for the first time in early October 1980 in Washington. In a day-long meeting at the

8 November-December 1981. National Parks and Conservation Association, roughly 60 persons representing diverse nonprofit organizations, foundations, government agencies, church groups, and at least one labor union gathered to discuss the implications of Global 2000 for their respective programs and activities, share current information, and find ways to be mutually supportive. At that meeting, there was a collective decision to continue to hold similar monthly meetings on global issues, and to call the informal and unincor- porated group the Global 2000 Citizens Committee.

The Global 2000 Citizens Committee met on a regular basis through the fall of 1980 and into the winter and spring of 1981. Several organizations shared in the leadership during this period, particularly Zero Popula- tion Growth and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The immediate goals of the Citizens Committee were: (1) to encourage public responses to the invitation by CEQ Chairman Gus Speth to submit suggestions for the compilation of policy recommendations that eventually became Global Future: Time to Act; (2) to bring the Global 00 Re@ort to the aFt@ention of a wider audience, including public officials; and (3) to create a continuing 'public-interest group constituency' for Global 2000 to help keep the importance of the report in cus over the turbulent period of a change of administrations in the federal government.

New impetus for these efforts was provided in late January 1981 by the National Leadership Conference on Population, Resources, and Environment, convened by the National Audubon Society with cosponsorship by a total of 60 organizations. At this two-day conference, attended by over 275 individuals, a report was presented on the work of the Global 2000 Citizens Committee. The enthusiastic reception among the participants led to a consensus on creating a permanent structure to accommodate the shared interests and concerns of the many organizations involved.

Planning and arrangements culminated in late May at the inaugural meeting of the Board of Directors, when the Global Tomorrow Coalition officially came into being, welcoming into its ranks those who wished to continue the work they had begun under the auspices of the Global 2000 Citizens Committee. Having served its purpose well, the latter group ceased to exist. The two-person staff of the Global Tomorrow coalition opened an office near Dupont Circle on July 1.

During the fall and winter of 1980-81, a separate but related organization was being born: The Year 2000 Committee. Unlike the Global Tomorrow Coalition, which is a consortium of organizations whose combined national

memberships exceed five million Americans, The Year 2000 Committee is by design a small group of individuals, and intends to remain small. In most cases, its members will act in their own right rather than through the institutions of which they may be a part.

But the members of The Year 2000 Committee are persons of such prominence, recognition, and accomplishment that they share a remarkable capacity for access to decision-making levels in both government and the private sector. They intend to use that unique capacity over time to convey a simple message: that the complex, long-term issues posed by Global 2000 and other studies demand concerted national attention and action; they are not limited to a given administration, political party, or partisan group. The specific means by which The Year 2000 Committee will choose to transmit that message are to be decided in a meeting on November 10.

CONCLUSION

In short, a large number of like-minded persons are producing a mass movement to achieve their goals for environmental and population policy, justifying the movement with frightening but fallacious research. There are no organizations or communications media dedicated to setting the record straight or to opposing the Global 2000 initiatives. These activities already have caused misallocation of natural resources in the United States, sapping of the national will, deterioration in public morale, and loss of confidence (with consequent reduction in risk investment) in the business community. How will this juggernaut, fueled by false information and special-interest values, be stopped short of disaster?

Prepared for The Heritage Foundation by Julian L. Simon Professor of Economics and Business Administration University of Illinois

12

Figure. I Nationa'I Trend in Urb.an PSI Levels, 1974-77

M got" 0 13 E2 Grader fts 30 ("kazardews")

22118 -

2M.

400-

2M

1574 000' IM IM

Source: Based an U.i Environmental Protection Agency date. From: Annual Report, Council on Environmental Quality.

13

Figure 2 National Ambient Concentrations of Total Suspended Particulates, Nitrogen Dioxide, and Sulfur Dioxide, 1960-1980

Micrograms per cubic meter

100

80 -

TSP so -

N 02

40 - **@-@@S 0 2@

20 -

0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

Onto rnsy no be strictly cormarable. TSP (total stropendool oaftwistes) data lor 1960-1971 are based an 95 sites. Onto for 1972-1976 am based on more than 3.OW silos. For 1977-1980. them were 1.925 vies. The annual standard for TSP is 75 rnicrowarns Per cubic noter. SO 2 (sulfur d1widel data are based an 84 sites. all In urban areas. The annual standard for SO 2 is 00 micrograms pw cubic motor. M02 (nitrogen data am bow an Me sites. The annual standard for NOI is IW rnicrognons per cubic ffwtw. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Figure 3 4% 2% aq, 5% %

..... ..... 31%

32%

1961 1967 1974 Percentage of All Monitoring St"ons Percernage of ad observed loweis exceeding criteria or reference levels Saves 80-100% 0 Very Poor, W-80% 49 Pow: 40-60% 9 Fair 20-40% 0 Good: 0-20% F@

Trends in the Quality of Drinking Water in the U.S.

Source: Julian L. Simon, The.Ultimate Resource.'

14

cn

c4 (D r, m @-j

cn

Si

-3 M Wr- c: co -Z 16-0 Ir

co rt m

in

fA

Pi (D

In CL

3

r3

15

Figure 5

World Grain Alt Food Production Per Ps sun Food Per Person/index Grain Kilograms (M71 1001 Per P an 20 403

116. World 06@ foW per person to without World USSR food -300 per so World ._Iwnon grain PW 70- person, -

30- too

20

to

0 No 190 .190 190 1970 I-AM IM INS

Source: USDA, FAS FG-8-82 (3-15-82); USDA WASDE-133 (5-11-82); Brown, Building A Sustainable Society (Nortort, 1981), p. 81 (with authors' extrapolation of '81 and '82 population). The Food index includes all food commodities --including grains, pulse@ oilsee" vegetables, and fruit. The index excludes the PRC; the Source: USDA, ERS, Sta- tistical Bulletin No. 669, July 1981. USDA, Personal Com- munication, Dr. Patrick M. O'Brien (1980, 1981 index). Prepared by William Hudson..

16 Figure 6a Figure 6b The Price of Whest Relative to the The Price of Wheat Relative to Wages in the U.S. Consumer Price Index

35

7

f

6-

3 %

21 r

0 IM law law Ism 1920 Ism Iwo I" Iwo I= I= Iwo 1940 I= Isso 1940 Iwo Ism

Source: Historical Statistics of the United States, Bicenten- Source: Historical Statistics of the United States, Bicenten- nial Edition 1976, and the author's calculations. nial Edition 1976, and the author's calculations.

Figure 7

World Grain Stodcs as Days of Utilization

DAYS

too INCLUDING IDLED. S. CROPLAND SIMON & HUDSON So (1982'

so

70 X. A I so-

NOT INCLUOM IDLED U.S. CROPLAND USDA (1982)

30 INCLUDING IDLED U.S. CROPLAND 20., BROWN (19741

to

0 1S50 1955 1960 IS65 1970 1975 1980 1955 Sources: 1) USDA, FAS, FG 8-82 (3-15-82); USDA WAsbE-133 (5-11-81); 2) Brown, By Bread Alone (Praeger, 1974), p. 60; Brown, Building a Sustainable Society, p. 96; authors' estimates for 1981. '82. Data for 1952 and 1957 from D. Gale Johnson, World Food Problems and Prospects; USDA, ERS 479, U.S. Com Industry, February 1982, Table 46. Prepared by William Hudson..

17

APPENDIX I

WA@NlftGTCN. O-C. 20S16

The-14onorable William V. Roth, Jr. Chairman Committee on Governmental Affairs 3306 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Bilir

As you are aware, I recently introduced, along with Senators Cranston,.Corton, Mathias and Matsunaqa, S. 1771, the Global Resources, Environw.;:.nt, and Population Act of 1981. This legislation, i.1A enacted, will estaliiish a global foresigh_t capability within t@ie Federal government. Issues such as natUral res ources, the environment, and population policy will be addressed by-the interagency Council on Global Resources; Environment, and Population. -Fragmented federal planning in these areas will for the first time become a unified-effort.

The-m ain impetus for this-leqislation was the publication of"the Global 2000 Report To The President. That report clearly identified the problems wrt-hour currant public policies towards the environment,-population, and world resources. our disjointed public-policies musi. be coordindted if we are to seriously begin addressing our.rescurces limit%tio.ss of the future. The Council on Environmental Quality has formed a working group an global-, issues for the purpose of-examining the Federal governmentes foresight capability.- An.inter-agency wQrking group has been Iformed under the CEQ and will begin work soon. The White House has formed a-National Indicators Project for the purpose of keeping the President informed on-national and global demographic changes. Additionally, there has been citizen committees formed to respond to.the Global 2000 Report. Also, the House has recant-ly =vzd = the. -cpul--tion rolicies A A lovitlined in H.R. 907. The reason I bring these things forward is to point out that there currentiy is underway a good deal of discussion on global resource planning. Lastly, S. 1771 is the most. cost effect-ive demographic-changes on.the environment.

I would-appreciate your scheduling a hearing on S..1771 as soon as is practible. I firmly believe that we now must begin to address our resource base for the future, before it is too late. Your consideration of t.@.is matter is most appreciated.

Sincerely,

(Facsimile) Mark 0. Hatfield United States Senator APPENDIX II

FOUNDATION TS T00% ENUV IRONMENTALISTS

Editor's Note: In a recent news release. Ralph Mader's Capitol Hill "compensated" Virginia citizens by pouring $38,000 into the Na- devotees accuse a prestigious. American research organization of tional Wildlife Federation and Envirommenial Defense Fund. "compromiTing " ififindings to secure corporatefunding. According to the Naderites. die American Council on Science and Health en- FORD FOUNDATION dorsed pesticides to win grantsfrom Dow Chemical, took a moderate President: McGeorge Bundy view of sugar dangers to please Coca-Cola, and otherwise defended Vice-President: David E. Bell '7unk food " to gain favor of American agribusiness. Andrew Brimmer Of course this technique is second nature to the environmentalists Hedley Donovan - representing adversaries as soullese agents of unseen "corporate Robert S. MacNamara wealth. But who funds the environmentalists? J. Irwin Miller Irving S. Shapiro Below. readers can see the astonishing record offoundation grants Glenn E. Watts, Aspen Institute to fire no-growth movement - a record of industrialfortunesfinanc- ing their worst enemies. Often acting in response to perceived Grants to enviro n*mentafist organizations in 1979-81 "public" pressure, foundations have created an ironical situation - the "populist" environmentalists have the best-financed organika- Alaska Native Foundation ................... S 20,000 dons in America. Alan Guttmacher Institute ................... 11000,000 n American Friends Service Committee ........... 75,417 A n indication of the po wer "public " wishes enjoy o verfo undation ........................... 29,395 orpdllu- behavior is seen in a recent Virginia example. Found liablef Aspen Institute.'... tion of thestate `sJames Riverin 1977,41fied Chemical Company was Center for Law aind Social Policy .............. 12,000 encouraged byfederaliudge Robert Werhige to capitalize a "Virginia Conscrvationf@tndation .................... 25,000 Environment Foundation." The company complied, and has since Consumer Ener Council of America ......... S .76,546 Environmental Defense Fund ................. 404,000 Hawaiian Coalition for Native Claims .......... 25,000 institute for Democratic Socialism ............. 5,000 Massachusetts Audubon Society ............ ! . 10,000 Native-American Rights Fund ................. 600,000 Natural Resources Defense Council ............ 1,740,000 New England Natural Resources Center 335,500 New York Lawyers for the Public Interest ....... 15,000 Population Council ......................... 7,408,000 Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund ............... 170,000 Survival International ....................... 60,000 Washington University Center for Biology of Natural Systems ........................ 79,"3 Wisconsin Center for Public Policy ............ 268,000 Youth Project ............................. 10,000 World Wildlife Fund ........................ 25,000

Source: Environmental NewS Service-date not known.

19

APPENDIX II CONT.

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD FOUNDATION Director: Robert 0. Anderson, Club of Rome Director: Thornton Bradshaw, Club of Rome Grants to environmentalist organizations in 1919-80 ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND Aspen Institute ............................. S1,436,000 Henry Kissinger California Conservation Project .............. 15,000 Dana Creel Center for International Environmental William M. DicEel Information ............................. 10,000 William %IcChesncy Martin International Institute for Environmental David Rockefeller and other family members Information ............................. 20,000 Grants to environmentalist orygunizations in 1979-W: National Wildlife Federation .................. 50,000 Sierra Club Federation ...................... 30,000 American Frien& Service Committee .......... S Z5,000 U.S. Association for the Club of Rome ......... 5,000 Aspen Institute ............................. 60,000 Wilderness Society .......................... 15,000 Center for Law and Social Policy .............. 115,000 World Wildlife Fund ........................ 10,000 Conservation Foundation .................... 50,000 International Federation of Institutes of ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION Advanced Studies (Club of Rome) ........... 60,000 David Rockefeller National Center for Policy Alternaitves ........ 140,000 Theodore Hesburgh Natural Resources Defense Council ............ 50,000 RobLrt V. Roosa New Alchemy Institute ...................... 120,000 W. Ivlichaci Blumenthal Population Council ......................... 3,650,000 Lane Lirkland Survival International ....................... 25,000 Bill Moyers Zen Center (San Francisco) ................... 50,000 Victor Palmieri Northern Rockies Action Group .............. 120,000 Henry B. Schacht ROCKEFELLER FAMILY FUND Clifton Wharton, Jr. Granu to environmentalist orguniz2tions in 1919-81: Rockefeller family members are trustees Aspen Institute ........................... I... S 313,000 Grants to environmentalist orgitnization!in 1979-81: Conservation Foundation .................... 15,000 Community Nutrition Institute ................ S 25,000 Intemational Institute of Applied Systems Analysis Citizens for a Better Environment ............. 40,000 (Club of Rome) .......................... 108,000 Conservation Law Foundation of New England.. 120,000 John Muir Institute ......................... 24,310 Environmental Action Foundation ............ 20.000 Lindesfarne Association ..................... 35,000 Environmental Defense Fund .................. 55,000 Massachusetts Audubon Society .............. 34,000 Environmental Law Institute ................. 10,000 Natural Resources Defense Council ............ 25,000 Environmental Policy Institute ................. 130.000 Population Council .......................... 3,015,000 National Audubon Society ................... 50,000 Population Resource Center .................. 200,000 National Wildlife Federation ................. 20,000 World Watch InAitute ....................... 35,OW Natural Resources Defense Council ............ 210,000 Zero Population Growth Foundation .......... 37.5(X) Public Lands Institute .............. -- .... 10,000 Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund ................ 110,000 Southwest Research and Information Center .... 15,000 Wilderness Society ........................... 60,000 World Wildlife Fund ........................ 20.000

20

APPENDIX III

excerpted from a compilation prepared by'the National Legal Center for the Public Interest reflect recent grants made by foundations to a number of environmental activist organizations: \u239\'95 Arcadia Foundation, Norristown, Pennsylvania,-$5,000 to the Wilderness Society. \u239\'95 Austin Memorial Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, $12,000 to the Environmental Action Foundation. \u239\'95 Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, Winston-S'alem, North Carolina, grants of $20,000 and $30,000 to the Environmen- tal Defense Fund.

\u239\'95 Edwin J. Beinecke Trust, Greenwich, Connecticut, $60,000 to the Natural Resources-Defense Council.

V \u239\'95 Frederick W. Beinecke.Erun'd,' New York, Ne@q York, $17,500 to 'the Natural Resources Defense Council., $5,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund, and $5,000 to the Wilderness society.. * Booth Ferris Foundation, New York, New York, $25,000 to. the Natural Resources Defense Council.

\u239\'95 Bydale Foundati6n, New York, New York, $20,000 to the Environmental Policy Institute, $10,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund, and $5,000 to-the Natural Resources.Defense council.

\u239\'95 Mary Flagler Cary Charitable Trust, Millbrook, New York, $40,000 to the Natural Resources Defense Council and $15,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund.

Source: William T. Poole, "The Environmental ComDlex: Part III," The Heritage Foundation@Inistitutional Analysis 19-, June 1982, _pp. 13-14. APPENDIX III CONT.

\u239\'95 Clark Foundation, New York, New York, $15',000 to the Natural ResourceS Defense Council.

\u239\'95Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, New York, New York, $50,000 to the Natural Resources Defense touncii.

\u239\'95Compton Foundation, New York, New York, $5,000 to the Natural Resources Defense Council and $1,000 to Fri-ends of the Earth.

\u239\'95Chase Manhattan'Bank Charitable Contributions Program, New--- York, New York, $1,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund.

\u239\'95Ford Foundation, New York, New York, grants of $340,000 and $515,000 to. the Natural Resources Defense Council..

\u239\'95Foundation for the Needs of Others, New York, New York, $55,000 to the Natural Resources Defense Council and $40,000 to the Sierra Club-Foundation:

\u239\'95Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, San Francisco, California:, $12,000 to the Natural Resources Defense council.

\u239\'95Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr., Fund, Sari Francisco, Califor- nia, $14,130 to the Wilderness Society.

\u239\'95Harder Foundation, Detroit, Michigan, $1,750 to the Na-'Curai Resources Defense councli. \u239\'95Huber Foundation, Rumson, New Jersey, $10,000 to the )-I)- Natural Resources Defense Council.

*.J.M. Kaplan Foundation, New York, New York, $20,000 to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Henry P. Kendall Foundation Trust, Boston, Massachusetts, grants of $55,000 and $55,320 to Friends of the Earth, $25,000 and $50,000 to the Natural Resources Defense- Council, and $5,000 to the Wilderness Society.

*L.A.W. Fund, New York, New York, $30,000 to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

*L.A.W. Fund, Mount Kisco, New York, $30,000 to the Natura.1 Resources Defense Council and $10,000 to the Environmental Defense-Fund. Albert A. List Foundation, Greenwich, Connecticut, $50,060 to the Environmental Defense Fund, $10,000 to the Natural Resources Defense Council, $15,000 to the EnvirorLnental Action Foundation, and $15,000 to the Environmental Policy Institute.

About the Author