Fossil Energy
Oil Lobby Responds to Change.org Questions, Defends Claims on Climate Bill Costs
Published August 25, 2009 @ 08:13AM PT
Above: "Photo of caribou walking alongside the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, taken July 1998 by Stan Shebs." Source: Wikimedia Commons.
----
Last week I asked the American Petroleum Institute questions about its criticisms of the American Clean Energy and Security Act -- the climate and clean energy legislation that was passed by the House of Representatives earlier in the summer.
Jane Van Ryan, New Media Coordinator of the American Petroleum Institute, has answered. I've added some extra paragraph breaks to make the text more readable on-screen, and links as relevant to the content.
Do Ms. Van Ryan's talking points hold up? If not, why not? There are a lot of them, so I'm asking the Change.org community to help me out:
Please pick a point or a few to check out, and post your findings in the comments.
More after the jump.
Astroturf Update: Coal lobby group parts ways with fraudster PR firm
Published August 23, 2009 @ 07:00AM PT
Above: Protesting "Naked Fraud" at offices of Bonner & Assoc. in Washington, DC. By DC Climate Action.
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) announced Friday that it will no longer engage conservative campaign firm Bonner & Associates.
Bonner is the firm responsible for sending fradulent letters to three members of Congress in opposition to carbon cap-and-trade legislation -- letters that were made to look as if they were from legitimate grassroots citizen organizations.
"We will not be working with Mr. Bonner again," Joe Lucas, senior vice president for communications at ACCCE, told NationalJournal.com (which broke the story, as far as I can tell). "ACCCE did nothing wrong. Looking back, there would be many things we would do differently."
Opinion flew around the global warming blogosphere when the move was announced:
At the National Journal's Under the Influence blog, Amy Harder writes that ACCCE has yet to sever ties with PR firm Hawthorn Group, its primary contractor, which had in turn hired Bonner. Thus "the middleman in this scandal is not losing out."
ThinkProgress disagrees with ACCCE's claim of innocence: "In fact, ACCCE covered up the fraud and is now throwing Bonner under the bus. The coal coalition had been informed by the Hawthorn Group...days before the pivotal House vote on the energy legislation. But ACCCE kept silent, failing to notify lawmakers or the defrauded organizations."
ACCCE will continue to work with the Lincoln Strategy Group, a firm with its own troubled history of anti-Democratic voter fraud. "Makes you wonder," writes activist Jesse Jenkins at WattHead, "what else is the dirty energy lobby up to..."
OMB Watch worries that the fraudulent letters could have a chilling effect on grassroots organizing beyond the immediate situation. "Unfortunately, advocacy organizations may now be uneasy about any future letters they send to legislators and question whether they will be considered illegitimate."
In another blog post, OMB Watch makes the point most other blogging and reporting on this issue has missed: Under current law, there are no requirements for grassroots lobbying campaigns to disclose their origins and funding, "including the fake, Astroturf kind, even if specific pending legislation is mentioned and members of the public are encouraged to contact Congress."
Sine these corporate-funded campaigns can generally outspend and outshout public interest organizations and constituents, "the playing field is rendered unequal and the democratic process is hurt," writes OMB Watch.
Opponents of increased disclosure (who often include groups engaged in Astroturf lobbying) argue that requiring the public's access to such information is an unconstitutional regulation of speech and is intended to silence diverse viewpoints. Ethics watchdogs, however, say disclosure of grassroots lobbying is not intended to restrict free speech, but it is intended to bring increased transparency to both government and those who seek to influence government.
In addition, advocates note that nonprofit organizations and labor unions are already required to report on their grassroots lobbying activities via their annual IRS Form 990 reports.
Browsing a few of the more prominent conservative climate blogs, including Climate Audit, Watts Up With That, and Climate Depot, I've so far found no comment on ACCCE's break with Bonner & Associates.
Fatalistic Friday: Storms, heat, drought and double-dealing
Published August 21, 2009 @ 08:14PM PT
Another week's end brings us to another concentrated, hurts-less-this-way burst of the worst of the week's global warming news:
Storm Fells Hundreds of Trees in NY's Central Park: Hundreds of trees in Central Park were damaged and destroyed by severe thunderstorm winds as high as 80 mph. "I've never seen a wind of that velocity in New York City," Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe said. "It looks like pictures that I've seen of war zones where artillery shells have shredded trees." (The New York Times)
In hot water: World sets ocean temperature record: The ocean is 72 degrees F in Maine, 88 in Ocean City, Maryland. And all around the world, July was the hottest the world's oceans have been in almost 130 years of keeping records. "The average water temperature worldwide was 62.6 degrees, according to the National Climatic Data Center, the branch of the U.S. government that keeps world weather records. That was 1.1 degree higher than the 20th century average." (Associated Press)
Mexico Hit By Lowest Rainfall In 68 Years: It's killing cattle, threatening millions of tons of crops, and reducing the supply of water to Mexico City. (Reuters)
ConocoPhillips works to undermine climate bill, despite pledge to support climate action: Despite being a member of the pro-business US Climate Action Partnership, ConocoPhillips is now putting its weight behind opposition to climate change legislation. (Grist)
Questions for American Petroleum Institute's @janevanryan #ACES #ec09
Published August 21, 2009 @ 11:33AM PT
UPDATE, Tues., Aug 25: I've posted Jane Van Ryan's answers.
-----
UPDATE, 20:48 ET: Jane Van Ryan has responded, via Twitter, that she'll look over my questions and post answers online. Thank you, Jane. Stay tuned, readers...
-----
August 21, 2009
Jane Van Ryan
New Media Advisor
American Petroleum Institute
Dear Ms. Van Ryan,
I noticed you using Twitter, today, from an energy industry-backed political rally in Lima, Ohio. (I see you're blogging about these rallies, too.)
API's members have such a huge role in the nation's energy and climate policies. The oil and gas industry has already spent $55 million lobbing Congress, According to CNNMoney. It's on track to beat 2008's record-setting $83 million in lobbying expenditures.
Given how much influence this kind of money can buy, I'm encouraged to see you out in the social media scrum, where you can take questions directly from the public and the press.
Since you were tweeting from your mobile phone in Lima, however, it's very possible that you missed my messages. So the salient bits of our not-exchange are reposted below.
I hope you can look them over and get back to me soon with answers.
Best regards,
Emily Gertz
Journalist and Editor
twitter.com/ejgertz
Cut Music's Impact on Climate: Download your tunes
Published August 20, 2009 @ 08:11AM PT
Digital downloads have been blamed for eviscerating the music industry's profit model -- but compared to commerce in compact discs, they're great for the climate.
Get your latest Black Eyed Peas, Beyonce or Lady Gaga via the internet, and you'll cut the energy and carbon dioxide overhead by 40 to 80 percent over distribution of a physical CD, according to a new report commissioned by Microsoft and Intel. The savings come in getting rid of physical packaging, delivery, and the compact disc itself; the range of impact depends upon whether the customer burns the music to a CD.
If you walk to the music store instead of driving, however, the CO2 emissions are about equal with downloading and burning, say the researchers.
So take heart, old-school consumers: If you prefer browsing for new tunes in the aisles instead of online, forestall green guilt by putting on your sneakers and going to the store under your own power. (Consider it a new form of sneakernet.)
Also, downloads of around 260 MB or greater use enough internet energy to make them comparable in carbon pollution with the download and burn scenario, say the report's authors.
"However, as file sizes and Internet energy use are increasing, Internet energy efficiency is also increasing," they write, "thus it is unlikely even in the case of large file transfers for digital downloads to use more energy or produce more CO2 emissions than delivering music via CDs."
Yes Ryan Sager, There Is Political Astroturf
Published August 19, 2009 @ 08:03PM PT
When is political organizing not a genuine expression of citizen opinion? Not grassroots, but astroturf?
It's about where the funding is coming from, and why.
Author Ryan Sager didn't see it that way on today's opinion page in The New York Times.
His take: If people show up and believe what they're saying, then it's real citizen opinion and activism. "One reason the [health care] town hall protesters are called Astroturf," he writes, "is that they have ties to groups with corporate financing like FreedomWorks, run by Dick Armey, the former House majority leader." But getting people out is "basic politics," no matter who paid for it. In fact, "the Obama administration has been doing its own stage managing," writes Sager,
"At a town hall in Virginia last month, the president took questions from members of organizations with close ties to the administration, including the Service Employees International Union and Organizing for America, which is a part of the Democratic National Committee. The Web site of another liberal group, Health Care for America Now, instructs counter-protesters to "bring enough people to drown" out the Tea Partiers."
If you try to fault these corporate-funded campaigns on their methods, which are classic community organizing tactics no matter who uses them, then you are indeed taking a weak position.
The inconvenient truth that Sager is dodging here is that large corporations have the monetary and manpower resources to drown out political speech by public interest groups and citizen groups, which are typically much less abundantly funded. But corporate political speech is given equal protection with individual political speech.
If this sounds wrong to you, keep in mind that it cuts both ways on the political spectrum. If it's a cause you agree with, but a corporate-funded entity is paying to generate support for it while hiding its participation, it's astroturf.
Let's compare:
- The US Climate Action Partnership is transparently an alliance between corporations and advocacy groups; the list of members is right at the top of the home page.
- To grasp that the powerful oil industry PR group American Petroleum Institute is behind Energy Citizens, you'd have to recognize the modest acronym "API" on the group's list of participants, Then, you'd have to intuit that an organization that includes many of the world's biggest oil companies as members is likely to be calling more shots than, say, online retailer Gourmet Seed International.
Sagers also makes a category error to equate corporate-funded organizing with political parties and unions turning out people to influence policy. People organize into parties and unions specifically to represent their best interests in the political and economic arenas, where they might otherwise be ignored, and to get more influence over the matters that directly affect their lives.
People found corporations, and corporations pour money into lobbying and PR, to deliver a steady profit to their owners.
Firms like the conservative PR agency FreedomWorks endure for a reason; they're extremely canny operators that know how to tap into two rich veins: one of corporate money, and one of fear of change.
They also know exactly where to hit the traditional news media's reporting blind spot, which (speaking broadly) is that it hates to baldly confront liars with their lies.
I'd wager that they also grasp that the inherent nature of progressives ito suffer sometimes extreme differences of opinion within a single political coalition. This can create a time lag in reacting effectively to reactionary anti-reform campaigns -- whether genuine grassroots or astroturf.
Meanwhile, it's easier to harness the energies of the average reactionary right-winger, who loves to be ordered around, into expressing a disciplined set of messages.
The astroturf effort against health care reform is becoming more and more indistinguishable from real grassroots activism -- or to put it differently, it seems to be converging with non-corporate political efforts.
Time should tell soon if the "Energy Citizen" astroturf effort gains similar ground -- although judging from a report from today's corporate-sponsored rally in Houston, by Sarah McDonald of Texas Public Citizen, they're blowing it.
Kicked out of the rally proper by a security guard because she didn't work for an energy company, McDonald talked with people outside the event:
[S]peaking to other individuals who had been denied access was even more enlightening than listening to Big Oil preach their sermon.
This was such a fake, Astroturf event that they didn't know how to handle legitimate grassroots support. A couple of women who had been to some of the teabagger events and townhalls came down, armed with American flags and excited to protest "crap and tax" -- but even THEY weren't allowed in. Several others who had heard about the rally through Freedom Works, on right wing radio, or in the paper were also locked out.
Astroturf Update: House investigation discovers more forged letters
Published August 18, 2009 @ 05:41PM PT
A congressional investigation has yielded five more fraudulent letters sent to Congress in opposition to the House energy and climate bill that passed narrowly in June. This brings the total to 13 so far, with dozens more letters left to verify or debunk.
The letters were made to look as if they were written by legitimate grassroots community groups and associations -- nine in all -- and sent to three House members: Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.), Christopher Carney (D-Pa.), and Tom Perriello (D-Va.). "All three Members represent conservative, Republican-leaning districts and could be vulnerable in the 2010 elections," writes Anna Palmer at Roll Call.
The letters were actually created by the campaign-organizing firm Bonner & Associates, which was hired by the corporate PR firm Hawthorn Group, which in turn was engaged by the industry group American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy (ACCCE) to generate opposition to the bill.
Bonner and Associates has claimed that the letters were the work of a temporary employee gone roguewho's since been fired. The firm, which has a long history of working to promote anti-reform political agendas, has used that excuse before when it's been caught in corrupt activities.
Bonner worked in the late 1990s to avert U.S. ratification of the Kyoto Treaty to cap and lower greenhouse gas pollution. Then as now, the firm played upon fears of higher energy rates, without regard for their basis in reality. "But a former Bonner and Associates employee who spoke to TPMmuckraker" when this story broke at the end of July "significantly complicated that picture, portraying Bonner and Associates as a place where ethical missteps were far from rare. 'They just got caught this time,' he said."
As the three representatives received 58 letters in all, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is continuing to investigate the fraud. The committee, headed by energy bill co-sponsor Edward Markey (D-Mass.), has the power to subpoena witnesses to testify before Congress.
The astroturf letters released today were written to look as if they were coming from groups advocating for senior citizens -- grandma and grandpa, who would have to forego food and prescription medications if their heating and cooling bills went up due to a cap-and-trade system for cutting carbon emissions.
"Dahlkemper received a letter claiming to be from the Erie Center on Health and Aging that warned of higher electric bills should the climate bill pass," reports Jim Snyder on TheHill.com:
“We ask you to use your very important position to help protect seniors and other consumers in Pennsylvania’s 3rd Congressional district from higher electricity bills,” the letter states.
Carney, meanwhile, received a letter from the Dunmore Senior Citizens that included phrases similar to those in the letter to Dahlkemper.
“Many of our seniors, as you know, are on low fixed incomes. The cost to heat and cool our homes, run hot water and use other appliances is very important to those on a budget,” both letters state.
[[According to a non-partisan analysis, the bill as passed by the House would raise energy bills by an average of only $175 a year per household, less than $0.50 a day, by 2020 -- with the poorest Americans actually getting some money back.]]
Astroturf letters released earlier by the Select Committee faked the authorship of grassroots minority groups -- NAACP and Creciendo Juntos -- as well as other real-grassroots organizations. (The links go to the actual astroturf anti-cap-and-trade letters, at the Talking Points Memo's documents collection).
