High Park Group

• DATE: Registered January 22, 2003

Mission

The High Park Group (HPG) is a public affairs and policy consulting group in Toronto and Ottawa that represents many energy industry clients. The firm appears to support skepticism of climate change.

The group claims to work in a wide range of areas, but its primary areas are energy, environment, and ethics. Among its services are policy and strategic consulting, direct lobbying, media relations, and issues management. In 2009 the president was Timothy M. Egan. One of the directors was Kathleen McGinnis. The director of regulatory affairs was Julio Legos. The Ottawa director until September 2006 was Tom Harris. The High Park Group is registered as lobbying for several energy clients, including Areva Canada Inc., the world’s largest nuclear power company; ARISE Technologies Corporation, a solar technology company; the Canadian Electricity Association; and the Canadian Gas Association. Harris was a lobbyist for the Canadian Electricity Association and Canadian Gas Association. McGinnis was registered to represent the Canadian Electricity Association to lobby government agencies regarding activities of the National Energy Board related to electric transmission. Egan was a senior adviser to the Canadian Electricity Association and monitored U.S. policy as it related to the electricity industry of Canada.

In September 2006, Harris became head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), a group that describes itself as “promot[ing] responsible environmental stewardship.” Two of the three directors of the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are Egan and Legos of the High Park Group. NRSP promotes global warming skepticism. Tom Harris wrote in the June 7, 2006, National Post that “the hypothesis that human release of CO₂ is a major contributor to global warming is just that—an unproven hypothesis, against which evidence is increasingly mounting.” Critics have claimed that the Natural Resources Stewardship Project allows the High Park Group to lobby against climate change regulations on behalf of its energy clients without the clients being identified.

Although not trained in climatology, Harris has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering. Even before the formation of High Park Group, he made statements such as

I think most investors would sensibly conclude that until the science is more mature, pressuring companies to do something, or not to do something, about GHG emissions is a costly gamble and that they should wait until the verdict is in before deciding what to do (if anything).

In a March 8-14, 2001, European Voice article co-authored with geologist Tim Patterson, Harris asked, “Is the UN guilty of exaggerating fears over climate change?” In November 2002, Harris was one of the organizers of an event in Ottawa at which climate change skeptics were “to reveal the science and technology flaws of the Kyoto Accord.”

In the June 8, 2006, Vancouver Sun, Harris wrote an editorial titled “Environmental Heresy.” The subtitle read: “Failing to question the scientific assumptions underlying Kyoto isn’t fair to citizens concerned about climate change.” After his associations with the High Park Group and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, he became executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), in March 2008. This coalition describes itself as an association of scientists, economists, and energy and policy experts working to promote better understanding of climate change science and policy. Patterson is chairperson.

Significance for Climate Change

Some skepticism is good when considering conclusions made from scientific data, especially when different scientists reach conclusions that do not agree. Skepticism can also be used to confuse people. Critics of HPG, NRSP, and ICSC claim that they lobby against regulation to protect their clients’ profits. They emphasize that the registered lobbyist HPG directs the flow of skepticism from NRSP and ICSC, so that government decision makers will be so confused as to make no changes or the wrong change. If the wrong decision is made, then the world and its climate could be drastically changed.

Throughout the 2010s and 2020s, the wider scientific community moved to a virtual consensus on global climate change. According to studies, by 2024, at least 97 percent of climate scientists across the world agreed that global climate change was happening and that human actions were the primary driving factor. Additionally, studies showed that much of the public tended to underestimate the scientific community's level of consensus regarding the issue. Though disagreements about climate change continued, they tended to focus on the best ways to mitigate the advancing effects of global climate change, such as increases in severe weather patterns and rising sea levels.

Bibliography

DeWeerdt, Sarah. "People Underestimate Scientific Consensus on Climate. Correcting the Record Goes a Long Way." Anthropocene, 17 Sept. 2024, www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2024/09/people-underestimate-scientific-agreement-on-climate-correcting-the-record-goes-a-long-way/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2024.

Harris, Tom. “Scientists Call for ’Reality Check’ on Climate Change.” The Winsor Star, June 5, 2006. A

McCaffrey, Paul, ed. Global Climate Change. Bronx, N.Y.: H. W. Wilson, 2006.

Pearce, Fred. With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change. Boston: Beacon Press, 2008. S