FACTSHEET: William OKeefe
DETAILS
CEO, George C. Marshall Institute.
President and Founder, Solutions Consulting, Inc.
Member, Board of Directors, Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Registered lobbyist, ExxonMobil Corporation.
President Emeritus, Global Climate Coalition.
Former Senior Vice President, Jellinek, Schwartz and Conolly, Inc.
Former Chief Administrative Officer, Center for Naval Analyses.
Bio: http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=83 and
http://www.cei.org/pages/wokeefe.cfm
According to federal lobbying records, O'Keefe was a paid lobbyist for ExxonMobil, 2001-2005 on the issues of environment and climate change, with contacts with the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. He writes frequently about climate change in his role at the George C. Marshall Institute.
O'Keefe has a long history of involvement with the fossil fuel industry. O'Keefe served as Executive Vice President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, a position he held until 2000.
KEY QUOTES
1 June, 2001
"The President said what most people familiar with this issue already knew: Kyoto is flawed and will not work."
Source: George C Marshall Institute website
30 September, 2005
"For almost two decades, the climate debate has been dominated by advocates and environmental ministries, primarily those from the European Union. They used the image of a distant environmental apocalypse caused by human activity to fashion an unsustainable and unachievable treaty and to demonize any one who questioned their orthodoxy.
That orthodoxy holds that climate science is settled, that humans are the major
cause of warming in recent decades, and that there is only one way to avoid a climate-induced apocalypse later this century. That one way is to drastically reduce green- house gas emissions to levels 60% below 1990 levels by 2050. That orthodoxy is not built on observation, measurement, validation, and objective analyses, which are the bases of scientific information and sound policy."
Source: William O'Keefe, "Climate Policy, A Reality Check," Remarks to Society of Environmental Journalists, Sept 2005 [PDF]
1 June, 2001
"The President said what most people familiar with this issue already knew: Kyoto is flawed and will not work."
Source: George C Marshall Institute website
QUOTES
17 December, 2001
"We have no capacity to influence Mother Nature, and if it turns out that
the majority of warming is the result of natural variability, ... policy
actions that adversely affect the economy will do so without the benefit of
improving the climate."
Source: "The Scientific Certainties Of Climate Change Doubtful," CMR 12/17/01
6 January, 2004
"The current climate change debate isn't about action or inaction. It is about whether proposed actions are consistent with our state of knowledge and other important societal priorities. Our nation should not be frightened into adopting unknown and unproven technologies until they can contribute to healthy economic growth and until we better understand the impact of human activities on our climate system."
Source: "Climate debate isn't about action, it's about knowledge," Atlanta Journal-Constitution 1/6/04
22 March, 2004
"Every independent and credible analysis has concluded that it would have adverse economic impacts on most nations." "The range for the United States varies from about a 1 percent to almost a 4 percent reduction in GDP." That would translate into something between $130 billion and $500 billion annually, or $2,000 to $5,000 per family -- figures that seem high. A 4 percent reduction for a family making $50,000 a year would be about $2,000. A 1 percent reduction would cost about $500 a year, or about $40 a month.
"The reason for a large negative impact is simple." "Forced reductions in CO2 emissions involve suppressing energy use. While energy efficiency continues to improve, it is an objective reality that growing economies require more energy, not less."
Source: "The Costs of Climate Change" UPI, March 22, 2004
3 June, 2004
"Until we have a better theoretical understanding of these processes and better measurement data, efforts to build and use more complex models will simply squander scarce resources and perpetuate the conflict we have witnessed over the past decade."
Source: "The Challenge of Making Climate Science Policy Relevant"
3 June, 2004
"It should be self evident that until we better understand natural variability, feedbacks, climate sensitivity, cloud formation, water vapor, solar variability, and ocean currents, we cannot adequately understand the extent of human influence or the appropriate actions to mitigate it."
Source: "The Challenge of Making Climate Science Policy Relevant"
17 December, 2001
"We have no capacity to influence Mother Nature, and if it turns out that
the majority of warming is the result of natural variability, ... policy
actions that adversely affect the economy will do so without the benefit of
improving the climate."
Source: "The Scientific Certainties Of Climate Change Doubtful," CMR 12/17/01
6 January, 2004
"The current climate change debate isn't about action or inaction. It is about whether proposed actions are consistent with our state of knowledge and other important societal priorities. Our nation should not be frightened into adopting unknown and unproven technologies until they can contribute to healthy economic growth and until we better understand the impact of human activities on our climate system."
Source: "Climate debate isn't about action, it's about knowledge," Atlanta Journal-Constitution 1/6/04
22 March, 2004
"Every independent and credible analysis has concluded that it would have adverse economic impacts on most nations." "The range for the United States varies from about a 1 percent to almost a 4 percent reduction in GDP." That would translate into something between $130 billion and $500 billion annually, or $2,000 to $5,000 per family -- figures that seem high. A 4 percent reduction for a family making $50,000 a year would be about $2,000. A 1 percent reduction would cost about $500 a year, or about $40 a month.
"The reason for a large negative impact is simple." "Forced reductions in CO2 emissions involve suppressing energy use. While energy efficiency continues to improve, it is an objective reality that growing economies require more energy, not less."
Source: "The Costs of Climate Change" UPI, March 22, 2004
3 June, 2004
“Until we have a better theoretical understanding of these processes and better measurement data, efforts to build and use more complex models will simply squander scarce resources and perpetuate the conflict we have witnessed over the past decade.”
Source: "The Challenge of Making Climate Science Policy Relevant"
3 June, 2004
“It should be self evident that until we better understand natural variability, feedbacks, climate sensitivity, cloud formation, water vapor, solar variability, and ocean currents, we cannot adequately understand the extent of human influence or the appropriate actions to mitigate it.”
Source: "The Challenge of Making Climate Science Policy Relevant"
14 April, 2010
"Although it has been as warm or warmer in the past, EPA wants to act assuming a worst-case scenario — even if the probability of occurrence is incredibly small."
Source: The Marshall Institute
11 November, 2008
"The hubris and recklessness that created the financial crisis should be evident in the proposals of those who advocate unrealistic reductions in emissions without regard to their cost or economic consequences. Serious analyses by scientists have demonstrated that the technology does not exist to achieve major reductions in emissions."
Source: The Marshall Institute
5 October, 2008
"Picking a greenhouse reduction target four decades in the future may give the appearance of thoughtful long-range planning, but in reality it is meaningless."
Source: The Marshall Institute
4 September, 2006
I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people
Source: The Marshall Institute
8 June, 2010
"What I’m suggesting is we have a sort of an eco-evangelical hysteria going on and it leads me to almost wonder if we are becoming a nation of environmental hypochondriacs... Let me say I take it as an article of faith if the lord God almighty made the heavens and the Earth, and he made them to his satisfaction and it is quite pretentious of we little weaklings here on earth to think that, that we are going to destroy God’s creation."
Source: think progress
KEY DEEDS
4 April, 2002
O'Keefe was a guest on NPR's "Morning Edition," contributing to a discussion about IPCC Chairman Robert Watson, who called for regulations of the fossil fuel industries. O'Keefe argued that Watson's conclusions were not scientifically justified. The same program mentioned that ExxonMobil had written to the White House, criticizing Watson and requesting that he be replaced.
Source: Transcript, "US government decides not to back current head of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," Morning Edition, 4/4/02
9 June, 2000
Appeared on an NBC Nightly News report on the Clinton Administration's "National Analysis of the Long Term Consequences of Global Warming." O'Keefe said of the report "Everybody who has read the full document comes to the same conclusion. That it is a document that is designed to scare, not to enlighten, to mislead, not inform. And that's unfortunate."
Source: Transcript, NBC Nightly News 6/9/00
4 April, 2002
O'Keefe was a guest on NPR's "Morning Edition," contributing to a discussion about IPCC Chairman Robert Watson, who called for regulations of the fossil fuel industries. O'Keefe argued that Watson's conclusions were not scientifically justified. The same program mentioned that ExxonMobil had written to the White House, criticizing Watson and requesting that he be replaced.
Source: Transcript, "US government decides not to back current head of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," Morning Edition, 4/4/02
9 June, 2000
Appeared on an NBC Nightly News report on the Clinton Administration's "National Analysis of the Long Term Consequences of Global Warming." O'Keefe said of the report "Everybody who has read the full document comes to the same conclusion. That it is a document that is designed to scare, not to enlighten, to mislead, not inform. And that's unfortunate."
Source: Transcript, NBC Nightly News 6/9/00
ORGANIZATIONS
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Source: CEI website, 3/04
George C. Marshall Institute
Source: George Marshall Institute website 5/06
American Petroleum Institute
Source: "Earth Last," The American Prospect, 5/7/04
Global Climate Coalition
Source: George Marshall Institute website 4/04
United for Jobs
Source: United for Jobs June 30, 2004
ExxonMobil Corporation
Source: House of Representatives, Office of the Clerk, Lobbying Disclosure Registration
SOURCES
CEI website, 3/04
http://www.cei.org
CEI website, 3/04
http://www.cei.org
George Marshall Institute website 4/04
http://www.marshall.org
George Marshall Institute website 4/04
http://www.marshall.org
"Earth Last," The American Prospect, 5/7/04
article by Chris Mooney
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7603
"Earth Last," The American Prospect, 5/7/04
article by Chris Mooney
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7603
Transcript, "US government decides not to back current head of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," Morning Edition, 4/4/02
Transcript, "US government decides not to back current head of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," Morning Edition, 4/4/02
Transcript, NBC Nightly News 6/9/00
Transcript, NBC Nightly News 6/9/00
"The Scientific Certainties Of Climate Change Doubtful," CMR 12/17/01
"The Scientific Certainties Of Climate Change Doubtful," CMR 12/17/01
"Climate debate isn't about action, it's about knowledge," Atlanta Journal-Constitution 1/6/04
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=186
"Climate debate isn't about action, it's about knowledge," Atlanta Journal-Constitution 1/6/04
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=186
"The Costs of Climate Change" UPI, March 22, 2004
The Costs of Climate Change: Dan Whipple
http://www.upi.com/
"The Costs of Climate Change" UPI, March 22, 2004
The Costs of Climate Change: Dan Whipple
http://www.upi.com/
George C Marshall Institute website
"Candor about Kyoto" - Op-Ed by William O'Keefe, June 1 2001.
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=26
George C Marshall Institute website
"Candor about Kyoto" - Op-Ed by William O'Keefe, June 1 2001.
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=26
United for Jobs June 30, 2004
essay "Climate Change Trojan Horse" attacking McCain Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act
http://www.unitedforjobs2004.org/ufj/wrapper.jsp?PID=8040-5&CID=8040-063004A
United for Jobs June 30, 2004
essay "Climate Change Trojan Horse" attacking McCain Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act
http://www.unitedforjobs2004.org/ufj/wrapper.jsp?PID=8040-5&CID=8040-063004A
House of Representatives, Office of the Clerk, Lobbying Disclosure Registration
2005 Lobbying registration for O'Keefe lobbying for Exxon
http://clerk.house.gov/pd/houseID.html?reg_id=34946
House of Representatives, Office of the Clerk, Lobbying Disclosure Registration
2005 Lobbying registration for O'Keefe lobbying for Exxon
http://clerk.house.gov/pd/houseID.html?reg_id=34946
"The Challenge of Making Climate Science Policy Relevant"
Remarks by William O'Keefe at the EPA Science Forum 2004.
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/227.pdf
"The Challenge of Making Climate Science Policy Relevant"
Remarks by William O'Keefe at the EPA Science Forum 2004.
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/227.pdf
George Marshall Institute website 5/06
http://www.marshall.org
George Marshall Institute website 5/06
http://www.marshall.org
William O'Keefe, "Climate Policy, A Reality Check," Remarks to Society of Environmental Journalists, Sept 2005 [PDF]
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/341.pdf
think progress
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/armey-pollution-gospel/
The Marshall Institute
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=795