swearingen, a

fresno mayor?

random grab from berman:

huffpo

W YORK -- A front group for Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm Berman & Company is back with new targets: green buildings, green groups and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Berman & Co., helmed by Rick Berman (who was once called "Dr. Evil" by CBS' "60 Minutes"), has a long history of running campaigns on behalf of the food and beverage industry under the banner of the Center for Consumer Freedom. Earlier this year, CCF changed its name to the Center for Organizational Research & Education, according to documents filed with the Government of the District of Columbia and the North Carolina Secretary of State's Office, which were obtained by The Huffington Post. The group also recently launched the cleverly named Environmental Policy Alliance, or EPA for short, a group "devoted to uncovering the funding and hidden agendas behind environmental activist groups."

An Environmental Policy Alliance spokesperson told HuffPost that the name change is part of a "restructuring" to "broaden the work that we're doing." The CCF will continue to exist, but alongside the "EPA" under the umbrella of the Center for Organizational Research & Education.

Thenew Environmental Policy Allianceappears to be one of Berman's first major forays into energy and environmental policy. The new "EPA" targets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which it deems "America's most powerful environmental activist."

Berman's "EPA Facts" site suggests that the connection between rising greenhouse gas emissions and warming temperatures is "still unclear," despite the fact that scientists have a solid understanding of the correlation. The group also argues that there are flaws in the work of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, citing reports from two well-known climate change-denying groups, the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.

CCF's Environmental Policy Alliance also launched a campaign called "LEED Exposed" last week, which critiques the usefulness of the U.S. Green Building Council's rating system for sustainability and efficiency of buildings. The group's "research" purports to show that "LEED-certified buildings use more energy and are more expensive" than uncertified buildings.

"This latest data release only confirms what we already knew: LEED certification is little more than a fancy plaque displayed by these 'green' buildings," Berman staffer Anastasia Swearingen said in a press release announcing the launch of the campaign on Feb. 28.

Swearingen also wrote an anti-LEED op-ed for Forbes in December 2013, arguing, "we're clearly not spending that money wisely."

A closer look at LEED Exposed's methodology reveals a significant omission. The report concludes that, as a whole, LEED-certified buildings in Washington, D.C., use more energy than buildings without the certification. But the analysis only looks at the energy use of buildings relative to size, or what is known asenergy use intensity.

EUI is only one of several recognized benchmarks used by building professionals to assess a building's efficiency, and looking at it in isolation ignores the importance of building density. Thus a large, abandoned building would score well for EUI, because its energy use is quite low relative to size.

"Their goal is just to confuse you," Scot Horst, the senior vice president of LEED at the U.S. Green Building Council, told HuffPost. Most Americans are unfamiliar with terms like energy use intensity, he explained, and may not fully grasp the complexities of assessing efficiency. EUI is "only a very partial snapshot of what's happening," according to Horst, and ignoring other measurements "leads to very unfair comparisons."

Groups like the American Chemistry Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represent the wood, plastics and vinyl industries, have bashed LEED in the past.

Swearingen told HuffPost that the alliance doesn't solely represent business interests, arguing that all Americans have a vested interest in affordable energy.

"Berman makes his money as a corporate hired gun, setting up front groups to denigrate public interest organizations that threaten his clients' bottom lines," Melanie Sloan, executive director for the nonprofit watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told HuffPost. "I'm not surprised he's attacking groups and agencies focused on the environment, given the deep pockets of those interested in paying to stop climate change legislation and regulation."

"These methods of attack rely on the way people read media," Horst added. "They rely on creating confusion."

Manufacturing doubt around scientific issues and sowing confusion through the media is a well-documented industry strategy -- one that Berman has often employed.

Berman & Co. has previously attacked organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and campaigned against minimum-wage increases and unionization.

The Environmental Policy Alliance also ran a full-page ad in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, claiming that the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Food & Water Watch "are using scare tactics and junk science to push policies that increase the cost of energy."

"This feeble attempt at a smear campaign is a good reminder to always consider the source," an NRDC spokesperson told HuffPost. "As opposed to this newly re-named front group, we've been around for decades. We cite our research. We sign our names on our materials. And we don't lurk in the shadows because there's no reason to hide our good work to protect our air, our water and our communities."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/environmental-policy-alliance-berman_n_4913303.html?ir=Green&utm_campaign=030714&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-green&utm_content=Title

april 2015

CREW Staff

April 13, 2015

Last week, Claire Moser of the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress highlighted the rolethat Richard Berman’s public relations firm, Berman and Co., is playing in a campaign to sell off America’s national forests and public lands. Berman and Co. is notorious for using nonprofit front groups to wage deceptive campaigns on behalf of corporate clients. One of Berman’s employees, Will Coggin, has been spamming newspapers with op-eds arguing that publicland management should be moved from the federal government to the states, who are more likely to sell the land for energy development.

Each of Coggin’s nearly identical columns — published under the guise of Berman’s Environmental Policy Alliance project — accuses several sportsmen’s groups who oppose shifting control of public lands of being “green decoys” because they have received some funding from environmentally engaged foundations. “A quick look at their ‘dark money’ financial backers makes their true motive clear: To lock away land from being utilized for economic growth and jobs,” writes Coggin.

It takes a lot of gall for a Berman operative to attack other organizations over “dark money,” especially as part of an attack campaign that appears to have gotten its seed money from a foundation described as “the dark-money ATM of the conservative movement” by Mother Jones. In 2013, Donors Trust, a donor-advised fund “dedicated to promoting a free society,” gave $57,250 to Berman’s Center for Consumer Freedom “for hunting organization opposition research.” That same year, the Center for Consumer Freedom reported spending $71,132 on research into “various environmental activist groups and their activities.” The “Green Decoys” project debuted in January 2014.

Since launching, Coggin has published at least 29 op-eds and letters-to-the editor attacking groups such as Trout Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, including three more since Moser’s story. None of them mention that Coggin works for Berman and Co., instead listing him as an analyst at either the Center for Consumer Freedom or the Environmental Policy Alliance. Only three mention that the Environmental Policy Alliance’s parent organization, the Center for Organizational Research and Education, “is supported by a variety of businesses and foundations, including those in the hospitality, agriculture and energy industries.”

One publication, the Sierra Sun, posted an editor’s note after running a letter last August, writing that Coggin had “misidentified himself as a senior research analyst for the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Environmental Policy Alliance” and is “is actually employed by Berman and Co.” The note closed with an apology to readers: “the Sierra Sun regrets publishing this misinformation.”

Coggin’s refusal to admit his own agenda while casting aspersions on others is not the only deceptive aspect of his and Berman’s public lands campaign. In a Washington Examiner op-ed last October about Trout Unlimited’s opposition to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management issuing oil and gas leases in Nevada, Coggin cited research by University of Wyoming professor Timothy Considine claiming that up to 208,000 jobs would be created if all of the oil and gas projects on federal lands in seven Western states were approved.

Unmentioned by Coggin? Professor Considine’s report was funded by another one of Berman’s front groups, the Employment Policies Institute,and “prepared under a consulting agreement with the Interstate Policy Alliance.” On his curriculum vitae, Professor Considine also lists himself as a consultant for the Interstate Policy Alliance on “energy development on federal lands.” The Interstate Policy Alliance is a project of the Employment Policies Institute that works with the think tanks in the conservative State Policy Network to “support and promote state-based research” from a free market perspective. The Guardian recently documented how the Interstate Policy Alliance is funding research critical of the Environmental Protection Agency’s power plant rules.

Coggin isn’t the only Berman employee to cite Professor Considine’s research while arguing for opening up public lands to development without acknowledging their ties. In June 2014, Anastasia Swearingen, a Berman employee,published op-eds in the *Las Vegas Review-Journal* and the *Salt Lake Tribune* that cited Professor Considine’s research as proof that “radical environmentalists have prevented Western states from reaping enormous economic benefits.”Like theSierra Sun, the Salt Lake Tribune came to regret describing the op-ed as having been written by a representative of the Environmental Policy Alliance.

The column now carries an editor’s note as well: “This commentary originally described the author as a senior research analyst for the Environmental Policy Alliance. In fact, Anastasia Swearingen works for the public relations firm Berman and Co., which manages the Environmental Policy Alliance and represents clients in the energy industry.”

berman exposed site:

Short Bio: Anastasia Swearingen is a senior government relations, communications, and research associate at Berman and Company, and also serves as a senior research analyst for both the Center for Consumer Freedom and the Environmental Policy Alliance. Only recently taking on a public profile, she is the point person for Berman’s expansion into environment and energy-related projects. Before joining Berman and Company, Swearingen worked as a legislative associate at Stateside Associates, a state and local government affairs firm. She also worked as an associate at Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform. She graduated from the University of Maryland Baltimore County with a BA in history, English literature, and economics; and from George Washington University with an MPP in environmental resource policy.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/anastasiafeaster?trk=pub-pbmap

Anastasia Swearingen

Director, Strategic Communications at American Chemistry Council

Washington D.C. Metro AreaPublic Relations and Communications

Current

American Chemistry Council

BAC, Stateside Associates, Federal Highway Administration

264

connections

View Anastasia’s full profile. It's free!

Your colleagues, classmates, and 400 million other professionals are on LinkedIn.

View Anastasia’s Full Profile

Experience

American Chemistry Council

Director of Strategic Communications

American Chemistry Council

May 2016 – Present (3 months)Washington D.C. Metro Area

Communications and Policy Director aka BERMAN? and Co

BAC

September 2010 – April 2016 (5 years 8 months)Washington D.C. Metro Area

Stateside Associates

Legislative Associate

Stateside Associates

April 2008 – September 2010 (2 years 6 months)

Federal Highway Administration

Civil Rights and Environment PDP

Federal Highway Administration

May 2007 – April 2008 (1 year)Baltimore, Maryland Area

Press and Legislative Assistant

Maryland General Assembly

January 2007 – May 2007 (5 months)

Americans for Tax Reform

Associate

Americans for Tax Reform

September 2006 – January 2007 (5 months)Washington D.C. Metro Area

U.S. House of Representatives

Intern

U.S. House of Representatives

September 2005 – January 2006 (5 months)

NEW YORK — A front group for Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm Berman & Company is back with new targets: green buildings, green groups and the Environmental Protection Agency.Berman & Co., helmed by Rick Berman (who was once called “Dr. Evil” by CBS’ “60 Minutes”), has a long history of running campaigns on behalf of the food and beverage industry under the banner of the Center for Consumer Freedom. Earlier this year, CCF changed its name to the Center for Organizational Research & Education, according to documents filed with the Government of the District of Columbia and the North Carolina Secretary of State’s Office, which were obtained by The Huffington Post. The group also recently launched the cleverly named Environmental Policy Alliance, or EPA for short, a group “devoted to uncovering the funding and hidden agendas behind environmental activist groups.”An Environmental Policy Alliance spokesperson told HuffPost that the name change is part of a “restructuring” to “broaden the work that we’re doing.” The CCF will continue to exist, but alongside the “EPA” under the umbrella of the Center for Organizational Research & Education.The new Environmental Policy Alliance appears to be one of Berman’s first major forays into energy and environmental policy. The new “EPA” targets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which it deems “America’s most powerfulenvironmental activist.”Berman’s “EPA Facts” site suggests that the connection between rising greenhouse gas emissions and warming temperatures is “still unclear,” despite the fact that scientists have a solid understanding of the correlation. The group also argues that there are flaws in the work of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, citing reports from two well-known climate change-denying groups, the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.CCF’s Environmental Policy Alliance also launched a campaign called “LEED Exposed” last week, which critiques the usefulness of the U.S. Green Building Council’s rating system for sustainability and efficiency of buildings. The group’s “research” purports to show that “LEED-certified buildings use more energy and are more expensive” than uncertified buildings.“This latest data release only confirms what we already knew: LEED certification is little more than a fancy plaque displayed by these ‘green’ buildings,” Berman staffer Anastasia Swearingen said in a press release announcing the launch of the campaign on Feb. 28.Swearingen also wrote an anti-LEED op-ed for Forbes in December 2013, arguing, “we’re clearly not spending that money wisely.”A closer look at LEED Exposed’s methodology reveals a significant omission. The report concludes that, as a whole, LEED-certified buildings in Washington, D.C., use more energy than buildings without the certification. But the analysis only looks at the energy use of buildings relative to size, or what is known as energy use intensity.EUI is only one of several recognized benchmarks used by building professionals to assess a building’s efficiency, and looking at it in isolation ignores the importance of building density. Thus a large, abandoned building would score well for EUI, because its energy use is quite low relative to size.“Their goal is just to confuse you,” Scot Horst, the senior vice president of LEED at the U.S. Green Building Council, told HuffPost. Most Americans are unfamiliar with terms like energy use intensity, he explained, and may not fully grasp the complexities of assessing efficiency. EUI is “only a very partial snapshot of what’s happening,” according to Horst, and ignoring other measurements “leads to very unfair comparisons.”Groups like the American Chemistry Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represent the wood, plastics and vinyl industries, have bashed LEED in the past.Swearingen told HuffPost that the alliance doesn’t solely represent business interests, arguing that all Americans have a vested interest in affordable energy.“Berman makes his money as a corporate hired gun, setting up front groups to denigrate public interest organizations that threaten his clients’ bottom lines,” Melanie Sloan, executive director for the nonprofit watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told HuffPost. “I’m not surprised he’s attacking groups and agencies focused on the environment, given the deep pockets of those interested in paying to stop climate change legislation and regulation.”“These methods of attack rely on the way people read media,” Horst added. “They rely on creating confusion.”Manufacturing doubt around scientific issues and sowing confusion through the media is a well-documented industry strategy — one that Berman has often employed.Berman & Co. has previously attacked organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and campaigned against minimum-wage increases and unionization.The Environmental Policy Alliance also ran a full-page ad in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, claiming that the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Food & Water Watch “are using scare tactics and junk science to push policies that increase the cost of energy.”“This feeble attempt at a smear campaign is a good reminder to always consider the source,” an NRDC spokesperson told HuffPost. “As opposed to this newly re-named front group, we’ve been around for decades. We cite our research. We sign our names on our materials. And we don’t lurk in the shadows because there’s no reason to hide our good work to protect our air, our water and our communities.”UPDATE: March 12 — On March 9, Swearingen, writing as a “senior research analyst” for the Environmental Policy Alliance, published an online op-ed on USA Today’s website. In the essay she argues “LEED certification is more or less useless as a metric for determining how ‘green’ a building is,” and goes on to describe the LEED standard as “greenwashing.”When asked by HuffPost about the column (which did not run in USA Today’s print edition), a member of USA Today’s editorial board said he wasn’t aware at the time it was published that it had originated with Berman’s group.“I thought I was up to date on their various incarnations,” he said, adding that USA Today intends to add an editor’s note to Swearingen’s piece to clarify its origin.Berman’s Environmental Policy Alliance also ran a full-page advertisement for its “EPA Facts” website in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal. The ad charges that energy prices may “skyrocket,” and lambastes “oppressive energy regulations” from the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency.A 2013 Office of Management and Budget report estimated that the benefits of 32 EPA rules, including reduced exposure to particulate matter and other air pollution, greatly exceeded the aggregate costs of their implementation over the preceding decade.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/environmental-policy-alliance-berman_n_4913303.html == ===