Why does the United States lack a global warming policy? The corporate inner circle versus public interest sector elites

ABSTRACT

Why has the United States not adopted global warming policies? Because the inner circle of the corporate elite has opposed these policies despite some corporate support for cap-and-trade and other policies. Pro- and anti-positions taken by think tanks that have led the policy debate in the post-Kyoto period are analyzed in order to demonstrate this. The corporate and upper class social ties of the directors of these pro- and anti-think tanks are examined, revealing a corporate elite split between the inner circle opposing these policies, and a ‘public interest sector’ of corporate law and media corporations along with top executives from higher education and other nonprofits that is supportive of policies addressing global warming. To enable adoption of major global warming policies, the corporate inner circle will need to become supportive and forge a class-wide corporate consensus on the need to address global warming.

KEYWORDS:

• Climate change
• global warming
• corporate elite
• countermovement
• environmental movement
• think tanks
• public interest sector

Acknowledgements

For their helpful comments on this paper, we would like to thank Robert Brulle, Elizabeth Menaghan, Edward Crenshaw, Jim Moody, Steve Lopez, Andrew Martin, Beth Mintz, Gwen Moore, G. William Domhoff, Lindsay Young, Chris Papaleonardos, Steven Boutcher, Matt Costello, Jeremy Baker, and Rachael Gossett. We are also indebted to the anonymous peer reviewers and editors for their invaluable comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. ‘Many USCAP companies, in fact, also belonged to the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, or the US Chamber of Commerce, which were all opposed to climate legislation’ (Bartosiewicz and Miley 2013, p. 26).

2. McGann (2014, p. 8) defines think tanks as ‘public-policy research analysis and engagement organizations that generate policy-oriented research, analysis, and advice on domestic and international issues, thereby enabling policymakers and the public to make informed decisions about public policy.’

3. Hoover had previously been a unit of Stanford University funded by President Herbert Hoover. Re-chartering gave it autonomy and ability to raise funds from corporate and wealthy families.

4. The eight Ivy Leagues are: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale. The Seven Sisters are: Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, Radcliffe, Smith, Vassar, and Wellesley. The prestige schools are the top 28 universities with endowments of $1.5 billion or more and include institutions such as the University of Texas and Stanford (Dye 2006, p. 132).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation [grant #SES-0819412] to Jenkins.