I met with John Grasser (National Mining Association), and Bill O'Keefe (America Petroleum Institute), two of the three decision-makers of the Global Climate Coalition, to follow-up on a meeting with these two in Buenos Aires that also included Floy and Frank Mosley.
Background
I met Frank in Bonn last June. He contributed $5,000 to Sovereignty. He also discussed with me his desire to help create a mechanism that could provide funding to selected grassroots groups on an on-going basis. Frank had also previously provided some funding to Rob Gordon's National Wilderness Institute. We decided to meet again in Dallas and included Floy, Rob Gordon, Kathy Benedetto, Becky Dunlop Norton, and Gary Ehlig (Exxon), and two of Frank's employees. John Grasser, and a representative of Bill O'Keefe joined a part of the meeting by phone.
Rob was designated to draft a skeletal proposal reflecting the day's discussions. I had several concerns with Rob's structural concept. We met a second time in Washington. Rob & I were not able to reconcile our conceptual differences.
The major point of difference was that Rob wanted to create a new organization which his organization would administer for a small percentage fee. Having worked with John for nearly 10 years, and with API for 3 years, I knew Rob's concept would not be well received, even though it would be best if it could be funded. (Bob will remember our futile five-year effort to get the Environmental Stewardship Foundation funded).
In Buenos Aires, Frank suggested a compromise: perhaps the GCC could serve as the depository and administer the funds donated by a variety of donors. This question was presented at our Buenos Aires meeting, at which I told John and Bill that I would be in Washington in early December to discuss the matter further. The discussionss were productive.
Both John and Bill agreed that the GCC could, and would serve as the depository of funds to a "special activities" account. Moreover, they both agreed to contribute to the fund and help us solicit other members of the GCC for contributions as well. They have not yet decided which of two possible alternative mechanisms they will use.
I proposed that they create a new fund, to be overseen by the donors, which can receive contributions from both GCC members and non-members. (Their current mechanism requires that only GCC members may contribute.) The new fund would be established with a view toward making it an independent, permanent trust, with the donors designating some of the trustees and the grantees designating some of the trustees. Both John and Bill liked the idea, but the third decision-maker had not considered this approach and they would not make a commitment on the mechanism until they talk to him.
My responsibility to John and Bill is to assemble a package of project proposals for their consideration. They, the donors, will have the final say on which projects will be funded, and how the money will flow. The package I assemble should reflect the organizations and projects which have been identified through the meetings with Frank's group, to the extent that they meet the criteria suggested by the decision makers.
In preliminary meetings I have identified both Sovereignty and ECO in the range of $50,000 each. Several other organizations have also been suggested. The proposals I assemble must be projects that directly contribute to the objectives of the GCC, at least for this first phase. Both John and Bill know that we ultimately want to create a permanent structure that can address a wider agenda, but both insist that we will shoot ourselves in the foot (or heart) if we stray beyond the climate change issue on our first shot.
I suggested that our initial package would probably fall between $500,000 and $1.2 million, which is the range we have been discussing. They think that we may be able to raise between $500,000 and $750,000 if we have solid projects.
They think the time frame for funding could be within 60 days after we submit. I am putting together a proposal for ECO that will probably total around $75,000. We need to have a teleconference soon to discuss the Sovereignty proposal. It will necessarily be affected by another project that is being assembled with the Cooler Heads Coalition.
I also met with Jim Sheehan (CEI), John Carlisle (National Policy Center), and Craig Rucker (C-FACT), all of whom were in Buenos Aires. We continued our discussion about how to make our presence at UN meeting more effective. All agreed that one way is to unify behind a single banner as did the greens behind the Climate Action Network. I suggested that we use the Cooler Heads Coalition as our banner. (We can discuss my rationale if it is not obvious.)
There are many other elements to a coordinated effort at UN meetings that need much more discussion, but all agreed that we should continue the effort. This effort will be a project proposal in the package I am assembling for John and Bill. Sovereignty's project may or may not be included in the Cooler Heads project, but will be a vital part of the overall package. I can't tell which way to jump until I see what other projects may be offered.
I hope this is not too confusing. I will be home until Tuesday and would like to discuss the details with you by phone. I'm sure you understand that this information must be held in confidence among our Board and the individuals I have identified in Frank's Group. None of the parties involved in Cooler Heads know about the funding mechanism that we are trying to create. Let's keep it quiet until something happens.