webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

mike sommers ceo Am Petrol Inst

SEE api 4

5 25 billion dollar trump bribe

UKRAINE WATERSHED

---

jake an 5 24

A top U.S. House Democrat announced Tuesday that he is demanding answers from fossil fuel executives after Washington Post reporting revealed last week that former Republican President Donald Trump recently told industry leaders he would gut climate regulations if they raised $1 billion for his 2024 presidential campaign.

Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, on Monday wrote to the heads of the American Petroleum Institute (API) and eight companies: Cheniere Energy, Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, Continental Resources, EQT Corporation, ExxonMobil, Occidental Petroleum, and Venture Global LNG.

IFrame Content

Raskin's letters note that the executives "appear to have attended" Trump's fundraising dinner at Mar-a-Lago in Florida last month and "media reports raise significant potential ethical, campaign finance, and legal issues that would flow from the effective sale of American energy and regulatory policy to commercial interests in return for large campaign contributions."

"Mr. Trump's unvarnished quid pro quo offer is especially troubling evidence in light of recent accounts that the 'U.S. oil industry is drawing up ready-to-sign executive orders for Donald Trump aimed at pushing natural gas exports, cutting drilling costs, and increasing offshore oil leases in case he wins a second term,'" he wrote, citing Politico. "These preparatory actions suggest that certain oil and gas companies, which have a track record of using deceitful tactics to undermine effective climate policy, may have already accepted or facilitated Mr. Trump's explicit corrupt bargain."

IFrame Content

...

Raskin also highlighted findings from a January Oversight Committee Democrats staff report, which shows that "when Mr. Trump was in office, he accepted at least $7.8 million from kings, princes, and foreign states, including the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, in blatant violation of the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause, and rendered a sequence of foreign policy favors to his patrons."

The congressman—and constitutional scholar—asked the executives to respond to questions and document requests by May 27. He is seeking the names of employees who attended the April 11 fundraiser, copies of materials distributed during the event, descriptions of all policy proposals and related campaign contributions discussed, and draft executive orders or policy paperwork prepared by members of the companies.

"The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate 'any matter' at 'any time,'" Raskin explained. "The requested information is needed to investigate and legislate on matters related to presidential and presidential-candidate ethics and to continue to address the major ethics crisis created by Donald Trump's efforts to profit off the presidency."

As Raskin released the letters on Tuesday, Media Matters for America's Allison Fisher pointed out that "unfortunately, over a four-day period, TV news broadcast and cable networks—with the exception of MSNBC—did not cover Trump's proposition to oil executives."

However, Trump has made his policy plans clear. Even before the fundraiser, he publicly pledged to "drill, baby, drill" if he beats Democratic President Joe Biden in November. One March analysis found that a second Trump term would lead to the release of 4 billion more tons of planet-heating carbon dioxide—the combined annual emissions of the European Union and Japan—by 2030 than if Biden were reelected.

IFrame Content

The letters aren't the first time Raskin has taken aim at the fossil fuel industry this month. At the beginning of May, he testified before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee about a nearly three-year investigation into "Big Oil's campaign of deception and distraction," which he said "undermines the efforts we need to mobilize our people and government to save our climate, our habitat, and our species."

"Unless the deception ends, and until the industry is held accountable," the congressman warned, "we are unlikely ever to be able to muster the national political will to effectively tackle climate change."

=

https://www.mediamatters.org/climate-deniers/right-wing-media-used-opec-oil-cuts-blame-biden-domestic-gas-price-volatility

mma 10 22

On October 5, OPEC [saudi?] and non-OPEC allies decided to impose cuts on oil production despite the fact that they were cautioned against doing so by the United States. The cartel will cut 2 million barrels, a move that could further elevate gas prices in the lead-up to midterm elections. To help ease the impact of the cuts, President Joe Biden, during remarks on gas prices and energy security delivered on October 19, announced a 3 point plan to address rising costs and global oil supplies, including the release of 15 million barrels of oilfrom the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Biden also called for oil companies to increase production instead of buying back stocks and paying dividends to their shareholders, and warned these companies not to gouge gas prices as the cost of oil comes down. 

Fox has painted Biden as chiefly responsible for rising gas prices in a ploy to hurt Democratic candidates in the final weeks of midterm campaigning. Other right-wing media outlets and personalities have followed suit, and criticism has been magnified by a claim made on October 12 by Saudi Arabia’s ministry of foreign affairs saying that Biden asked OPEC to postpone the oil cuts for a month.

In response, right-wing media is using the same playbook and the same series of debunked arguments and disinformationfrom earlier in the year when Russia first invaded Ukraine and global energy security became a concern.

Right-wing media is once again misleading voters about how the global energy market works to push a pro-fossil fuel agenda.

Conservative media outlets are pushing the idea that drastically increasing oil production in the U.S. is a quick and common-sense solution to the problem of high gas prices because it would allow the U.S. to be “energy independent," a term experts have pointed out is widely misunderstood. The U.S. has imported oil for decades and will continue to do so for economic reasons. Importing and exporting some energy is necessary to meet the needs of the market. In that sense, we will probably never be truly energy independent in a fossil fuel economy. If we understand energy independence to mean the U.S. exports more energy than we import, that is still the case. In fact, by this standard, U.S. energy independence reached its peak in 2021 when Biden was president. 

Right-wing media push pro-industry talking points claiming that U.S. oil producers are hindered from drilling, blame elevated gas prices solely on decisions made by Biden

Gas prices have been elevated by increased demand following the easing of pandemic restriction and by oil supply disruptions created by Russia’s war on Ukraine. Prices dipped slightly toward the end of the summer, only to rise in late September, but are currently on the downtrend once again. Aside from OPEC’s recent decision to cut supply, a refinery fire in the Midwest and facility maintenance on the West Coast have reduced inventories to record lows, and a looming European ban on Russian oil, which will take effect in December, is also contributing to price increases. 

The U.S. oil industry is not being hampered by the Biden administration, as it has claimed to evade blame.In March, CEOs of major oil producers stated that they were not planning on investing in any new drilling due to pressure from investors for bigger shareholder returns. To be sure, the current climate of increased demand and global supply disruptions caused by Russia’s war on Ukraine has increased the price of oil, lavishing these companies with record profits while U.S. and global consumers have been hurt by high energy costs.In fact, U.S. oil producers are sitting on 9,000 unused drilling leases for public lands, and while right-wing media push the industry claim that Biden is suppressing domestic production, U.S. oil production on public lands is near all-time highs and is on track for record output in 2023.

Right-wing media attack Biden for Strategic Petroleum Reserve use, foreign oil imports, and efforts to stabilize global oil supply

To help manage global oil prices, Biden began releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves in March. The latest release of 15 million barrels, announced on October 19, is the last of those planned releases. Right-wing media have suggested that drawing down the reserve makes the U.S. vulnerable to other disasters where the reserve would be needed to shore up supplies while doing nothing to address gas prices. As it stands, the reserves are still more than half full. The move has modestly lowered gas prices, however, experts agree it is not a long-term solution. Biden is also considering easing sanctions on Venezuela for Chevron to resume pumping oil there, allowing the country to export to U.S. and European markets.

Right-wing media has disingenuously argued that getting oil from Venezuela would be more environmentally damaging than producing more oil in the U.S., thus, increasing production domestically would be the more ethical choice. This is a common fossil fuel industry talking point that bad actors use to encourage long-term investments in expanding domestic production, meant to delay an economy-wide transition to renewable energy and ensure that we are reliant on fossil fuels for decades to come. This would be the worst possible outcome for the environment. The same individuals who praise the U.S. for having such “clean” energy production compared to other countries are also fighting against regulations implemented by the Biden administration that are meant toprotect vulnerable communities and hold the industry accountable for the extensive damage it will inevitably cause to ecosystems, the climate, and public health.

Right-wing media claims Biden’s negotiations to keep OPEC+ from cutting oil supply are politically motivated and even impeachable

Despite negotiations with Biden to keep oil supplies stable, OPEC+ announced on October 5 that it would cut its oil supply by 2 million barrels a day in an attempt to push the price to $100 a barrel. The White House has called the move shortsighted, while analysts have noted that it benefits Russia and could push the global economy closer to recession. Some early right-wing reactions suggested that Biden — who in response to OPEC’s decision signaled thepossibility of more releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve — only cared about gas prices rising because of the looming midterms elections.

On October 12, in a rare statement to U.S. media, the Saudi government echoed these sentiments by claiming that Biden asked them to delay the cuts by one month – creating a feedback loop between right-wing media and the Saudi royal family. The White House has disputed these claims.

we are against whatever you want to do, even if we used to favor it? -->

WE ARE FOR IT BUT WILL GIVE NO SPECIFICS, AND WILL NOT LOBBY FOR IT, ESP IF IT IS IN bbb THAT WILL ACTUALLY ADDRESS AGW:

no lnx

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/us-oil-lobby-endorses-carbon-pricing-to-counter-command-climate-policies

uS oil lobby endorses carbon pricing to counter 'command and control' climate policies

by Josh Siegel, Energy and Environment Reporter | :{:(style="box-sizing:border-box;display:inline-block;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;text-rendering:auto;-webkit-font-smoothing:antialiased"):}:

March 25, 2021American Petroleum Institute endorsed carbon pricing on Thursday, putting the weight of the largest U.S. oil and gas lobbying group behind what many economists consider to be the most efficient policy to combat climate change.API’s support for the policy after years of resistance shows how pricing carbon, either through a tax or cap-and-trade program, has become the most palatable option for business groups despite its political unpopularity.MITT ROMNEY LEANS IN ON CARBON TAX TO SPUR CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY BREAKTHROUGHS] INNOVATION BS]The oil and gas industry is looking to demonstrate commitment to fighting climate change whilefending off mandates and regulations that have become the preferred approaches of the Biden administration and most Democrats.“The administration is talking about command and control approaches,” API CEO Mike Sommerstold the Washington Examiner. “We want to enter into this debate on one of biggest issues of the day to pursue a more market-based approach.”API’s new position is a clear shift from its previous stance and follows similar positioning by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which recently endorsed a “market-based approach” to accelerate emissions reductions across the economy, a term that generally means a carbon tax or cap-and-trade policy.Economists have long contended that a carbon tax is the simplest and most efficient way to address greenhouse gas emissions, since it would reorient the market to support clean energy without mandating it.A carbon tax would apply a per-ton fee for large emitters such as power plants and refineries that would encourage energy producers to switch to cleaner alternatives if doing so would cost less than paying the tax. A carbon price, at least initially, could benefit natural gas by pricing coal out of the market.“There is a recognition [PASSIVE] that a price signal through a market-based mechanism is the best way to incentivize investments in technology to continue to lower emissions and to address climate change,” Sommers said.API has acknowledged in recent years that climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed. It has backed policies such as funding federal research and tax breaks forcarbon capture technologies that can enable fossil fuel operators to continue to operate as long as they prevent their emissions from reaching the atmosphere.But Sommers said that API and its members are facing pressure from shareholders and investors, and its own workers, to do more, and he made clear the group now supports a comprehensive federal policy to address climate change across the economy, not just a series of one-offs.“When I came into API two years ago, we did not have a climate policy,” said Sommers, who was the chief of staff to former GOP House Speaker John Boehner. “This change was really driven by the membership.”Along with its support for carbon pricing, API released a broader "climate action framework"Thursday.The group said it will continue to advocate for funding to support clean energy technologies, includingcarbon capture and hydrogen, which is increasingly being viewed as a critical technology to curb emissions in the power and industrial sectors. Natural gas groups see an opportunity to use their pipeline infrastructure to transport hydrogen and generate electricity with it.API also reiterated its shift announced in January to support the direct federal regulation of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from new and existing oil and gas operations.And it vowed to expand its guidance [EXPAMD FROM WHAT? WHAT EXPERTISE?] to member oil and gas companies on how to disclose their risks from climate change. The Biden administration’s Securities and Exchange Commission took a first step last week toward requiring public companies to disclose the risks they face from climate change and emissions reduction policies, so the oil and gas industry is looking to show that it is acting voluntarily.But API’s shift on carbon pricing is the biggest development, although it remains to be seen whether the nod from the oil industry will persuade lawmakers to back the policy.API is not endorsing a specific carbon pricing policy, leaving unanswered critical questions about how high a tax on companies should be and how to handle the revenue raised by it.That’s intentional, Sommers said, because API wants to “provide flexibility to lawmakers as they develop these policies.”Sommers said API won’t be lobbying for a carbon tax to be included as part of the Biden administration’s forthcoming infrastructure package, which is expected to feature major spending on clean energy.“We would not support adding a price on carbon to abig infrastructure bill as a pay-for,” Sommers said. “We are not designing this to be some new flywheel for government spending. It is meant to address climate change.”CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINERCritics say the support of business groups for carbon pricing won’t spur a legislative breakthrough unless they pour lobbying money behind the policy.“Time will tell if industry support is any more than the political theater of the moment,” said Ben Ratner, the senior director with the Environmental Defense Fund+Business. “It’s one thing to support a concept and quite another to support a bill.”TAGS: News Energy and Environment Fossil Fuels Carbon Tax Climate Change American Petroleum Institute Chamber of CommercE=UKRAINE WATERSHED=https://the:{intercept.:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:com:{/2022/05:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:/25/fossil-fuels-disaster-capitalism-russia-ukraine/BACK IN LATE 2021, as Russian President Vladimir Putin began mobilizing troops at the Ukraine border, the fossil fuel industry got its foot soldiers ready too. With the threat of Russian aggression and subsequent sanctions looming, gas prices were on the rise, and the fossil fuel industry wanted the public to know that there was only one culprit: climate policy.“There are a lot of factors at play as to why energy prices are surging,” Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute, or API, :{t:(style="background-color:#ff9900;"):}::{old CNBC:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: at the time. “But certainly one of the key factors is that the Biden administration has made an effort to reduce production in the United States. One of their first acts, for example, was cutting off the Keystone XL pipeline. One of their second acts was cutting up leasing and permitting on federal lands, and then they cut off access to ANWR,” referring to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.He gave roughly the same interview every week for months. On March 7, two weeks after the invasion of Ukraine, he repeated it again, telling a CBS reporter, “You know, first they cut off the Keystone XL pipeline. Then they put a moratorium on leasing and permitting on federal lands and on offshore waters. And then they cut off supply from the Alaska natural national wildlife refuge.”[no lnx]that’s some consistent messaging! For the record, about 25 percent of fossil fuel drilling happens on public lands; the rest is entirely controlled by private companies. The fossil fuel industry is sitting on at least a decade’s worth of unused leases, so it’s unlikely that a lack of new leases has impacted current production or supply.The Keystone XL pipeline was intended to transport tar sands oil from Canada to export terminals in the Gulf of Mexico, where two-thirds of it was earmarked for non-U.S. customers. It was nowhere near functional when it was canceled: About 8 percent of the pipeline had been built, and TC Energy, the company behind the project, still needed to find $6.9 billion of the $8 billion construction cost to finish it.As for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the holy grail for U.S. oil companies, it has been off-limits to oil drilling since 1977. For a brief moment in 2017, the Trump administration reversed that, but no major oil companies — no API members — even bid on leases.These are the only pieces of climate policy Sommers continuously referred to because they’re the only ones the Biden administration has actually managed to pass, but none of them have had any impact on the current supply of domestic oil and gas in the United States or the price at the pump.But the facts don’t matter if you’re the first one to frame a story and you repeat it often enough.A new report out this week shows that consistent messaging, coordinated messengers, and a massive advertising blitz combined to deliver major policy wins to the fossil fuel industry as early as two weeks from the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.“On February 24, within hours of Putin’s invasion, I was just watching these serious patterns emerge,” said Christina Arena, a public relations and climate disinformation expert. Arena worked for the PR firm Edelman when it handled the API account, so she knows a campaign when she sees one. “API and other trade associations were echoing similar talking points immediately, anti-Biden talking points, anti-renewable energy talking points.” That kind of consistency and media training takes months, not days, to prep, she said.That prompted Arena to reach out to InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks the influence of corporate lobbying on climate policy. InfluenceMap teamed up with Media Matters for America and Triplecheck to look into what various fossil fuel interests were saying about Russia-Ukraine and how those messages were being amplified. The organizations’ resulting report pinpoints the top messages and messengers, and how they map to big policy wins.Some of the findings are to be expected. API went big, as did Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The usual suspects amplified the industry’s messaging: Breitbart News, Fox News, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, and Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn.All told, API placed 651 Facebook ads from the end of January to April 1, reaching more than 19 million people.On February 24, the day of the invasion, API and its network got busy. “There’s a huge peak where we get to 100 fossil fuel misinformation posts that yielded over5 million likes, comments, and shares,” Arena noted.“I think you could call it a disinformation-driven heist of public policy.”**:(style="letter-spacing:0.2px"):}::{**But there are some less expected findings too. After battling gas bans for two years, the gas side of the industry seems to have fully embraced the fact that the climate movement doesn’t see it as its friend anymore**. Gas entities that joined the party include the American Gas Association (a trade group for gas utilities), Hess Corp., and Sempra Infrastructure.:(style="letter-spacing:0.2px;background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{**The types of messages were also a surprise. After a decade or so of greenwashing, the fossil fuel industry is going full culture war.** :{The report finds three key messages across hundreds of social media posts and media appearances: American fossil fuel production ensures freedom and national security; high gas prices are caused by climate policy, and the solution is more drilling; and climate change is something only liberal “woke” elites care about.:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::(style="letter-spacing:0.2px"):}::{**There’s also a push to convince people that some kind of Green New Deal-adjacent policy is in place and that is what’s driving up gas prices. “I think you could call it a disinformation-driven heist of public policy,” Arena said.**:(style="letter-spacing:0.2px"):}::{:{And there’s the timeline, and the dividends this campaign has paid to the industry. By mid-March, the Energy Department was starting to grant permits to increase the volume at some liquid natural gas export terminals:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:. “So that’s two weeks maybe from the start of the crisis,” said Faye Holder, the lead author of the InfluenceMap report. “We’ve seen a heavy, heavy use of social media, both in advertising and organic content. **And then they’re feeding off of media too. A lot of the things that are retweeted by API, for instance, are Mike Sommers on Fox News.”**:(style="letter-spacing:0.2px"):}::{By March 25, Biden was announcing a U.S.-European Union liquefied natural gas deal that the Trump administration had tried and failed to get done: 15 billion cubic meters in 2022, with a standing order for 50 billion cubic meters a year until 2030. “That’s just a little over four weeks. :{That’s a very short interval,” Arena said. “And I feel that interval should alarm lawmakers. It should alarm people in the climate community. That’s disaster capitalism.”:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::(style="letter-spacing:0.2px"):}::{---:(style="letter-spacing:0.2px"):}::{some lnx:(style="letter-spacing:0.2px"):}:...but there are some less expected findings too. After battling gas bans for two years, the gas side of the industry seems to have fully embraced the fact that the climate movement doesn’t see it as its friend anymore. Gas entities that joined the party include the American Gas Association (a trade group for gas utilities), Hess Corp., and Sempra Infrastructure.The types of messages were also a surprise. After a decade or so of greenwashing, the fossil fuel industry is going full culture war. The report finds three key messages across hundreds of social media posts and media appearances: American fossil fuel production ensures freedom and national security; high gas prices are caused by climate policy, and the solution is more drilling; and climate change is something only liberal “woke” elites care about.There’s also a push to convince people that some kind of Green New Deal-adjacent policy is in place and that is what’s driving up gas prices. “I think you could call it a disinformation-driven heist of public policy,” Arena said.And there’s the timeline, and the dividends this campaign has paid to the industry. By mid-March, the Energy Department was starting to grant permits to increase the volume at some liquid natural gas export terminals. “So that’s two weeks maybe from the start of the crisis,” said Faye Holder, the lead author of the InfluenceMap report. “We’ve seen a heavy, heavy use of social media, both in advertising and organic content. And then they’re feeding off of media too. A lot of the things that are retweeted by API, for instance, are Mike Sommers on Fox News.”By March 25, Biden was announcing a [U.S.-European Union liquefied natural gas deal that the Trump administration had tried and failed to get done: 15 billion cubic meters in 2022, with a standing order for 50 billion cubic meters a year until 2030. “That’s just a little over four weeks. That’s a very short interval,” Arena said. “And I feel that interval should alarm lawmakers. It should alarm people in the climate community. That’s disaster capitalism.”* * refhttps://influencemap.org/report/US-Oil-and-Gas-and-the-War-in-Ukraine-19009### How the US oil/gas sector is using the war in Ukraine to undermine Paris-aligned climate policySee coverage in Agence France-Presse, Forbes Middle East, DeSmog, and The InterceptThis research details an active effort from the US oil and gas industry use the war in Ukraine to advocate for long-standing policy asks relating to the continued expansion of oil and gas. The research looks at the month following the invasion of Ukraine on the 24th February 2022. This has happened across social media, traditional media, public presentations, investor calls, and direct interactions with America’s policymakers. This lobbying behavior mirrors that seen from the oil and gas industry following the COVID-19 crisis.The industry appears to be using a number of key narratives to push its pro-fossil fuel agenda, many of which appear to include misleading claims or misinformation. These narratives include blaming the Biden Administration's climate policies for the increase in gas prices, calling for the development of more US oil and gas to lower gas prices and increase energy security, promoting LNG as a clean solution to the US's 'allies'.These narratives are being used to push for a long-term role for oil and fossil gas in the energy mix and appear to be targeted towards specific policy demands. These include advocating for policies which encourage new and/or increased oil and gas production, and rolling back previous climate policy decisions that limited the production of oil and gas or required climate considerations in new projects.While calling for policies to increase the production of oil and gas, the oil and gas industry continues to actively oppose a number of state level policies designed to reduce the need for fossil fuels. These include opposing fossil gas bans in new buildings and electric vehicle mandates.---reportexecutive Summary :This research details an active effort from the US oil and gas industry to use the war in Ukraine to advocate for long-standing policy asks relating to the continued expansion of oil and gas. This has happened across social media, traditional media, public presentations, investor calls, and direct interactions with America’s policymakers. This research focuses on the month following the invasion of Ukraine on February 24th, 2022. The main actors identified in this briefing are the American Petroleum Institute, American Gas Association, National Association of Manufacturers, US Chamber of Commerce, and Consumer Energy Alliance. The lobbying evidence collected covers letters to policymakers, large social media advertising campaigns, and public statements by CEOs. The latter of which also includes speeches and media comments from company CEOs and presidents such as Mike Wirth from Chevron and Ryan Lance from ConocoPhillips. The research identifies several key narratives used by the industry to push a pro-fossil fuel agenda during this period.* Some of these narratives, particularly those about the causes of the current crises appear to include misleading claims or elements of misinformation. These narratives include: o That the Biden Administration's climate policies have caused a decrease in the supply of oil and gas, leading to high gas prices. A similar narrative used is that the Biden Administration's policies have undermined US energy independence, making America reliant on foreign oil. Both narratives have been found to be misleading by AFP fact-checker.o That the way to fix gas prices and increase energy security/independence is to increase the supply of US oil and gas, which can be achieved through favorable government policies.o That LNG is a clean, low-carbon source of energy that can help transition the energy mix and achieve emissions reduction goals. This claim has previously been regulated against by advertising authorities in the UK for containing misleading claims. Moreover, increasing the production of oil and gas is at odds with the advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its latest report "Mitigation of Climate Change". InfluenceMap has seen these narratives used by CEOs of major oil and gas companies in the US, particularly during CERAWeek, a major energy conference. For example, Ryan Lance, CEO...conocoPhillips, stated that “poor energy policy, poor regulatory policy […] rapid push to renewableenergy and a maligning of the of fossil fuel industry" has led to the increase in gas prices.These narratives have also been heavily pushed on social media. For example, between February4th and March 31st, 2022, theAmerican Petroleum Institute created and ran an ad campaignthrough its astroturf group, Energy Citizens, which consisted of 233 individual ads that were seenroughly19.6 million times, equivalent to around 10% of all US users of Facebook (Q1 2022). All ofthese ads promoted 'American-made energy' or 'energy independence'.These narratives are being used to push for a long-term role for oil and fossil gas in the energy mix.The companies and industry associations identified in the research appear to have targeted thefollowing policy issues:o Introducing measures that encourage new and/or increased oil and gas production.o Rolling back previous policy decisions that limit the production of oil and gas or introduceconsiderations for climate change in approval processes for oil and gas production.o Opposing current state-level policies that would reduce the need for oil and gas andalleviate pressures stemming from demand for oil and gas.Recent wins for the US oil and gas industry resulting from this lobbying include the rollback of theFERC's proposal to consider climate change when permitting new gas projects on March 24th2022, and the approval of two new LNG export terminals on March 16th 2022.note fox uses API talking pts: even demonization for FF ceo hearings:https://www.mediamatters.org/climate-deniers/fox-news-dominated-coverage-congressional-hearing-big-oil-and-gas-pricesno lnx vid grfFox News dominated coverage of congressional hearing on Big Oil and gas pricesFox’s Big Oil hearing coverage was more than triple CNN’s and MSNBC’s coverage combinedCLIMATE & ENERGYWRITTEN BY ALLISON FISHERPUBLISHED 04/08/22Since last year, Fox News has been trying to pin the blame of rising fuel costs on President Joe Biden through its relentless coverage. The April 6 congressional hearing — by the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee — on the oil industry’s role in driving record high gas prices and earning record profits posed a threat to that right-wing media narrative. In response, Fox News programs devoted 49 minutes of coverage to the hearing, much of which defended Big Oil and insisted that Biden’s policies are responsible for high gas prices. In comparison, CNN and MSNBC covered the hearings for only 10 minutes and 4 minutes, respectively, effectively letting Fox shape the narrative around this moment and failing to use it as a catalyst to inform viewers on the myriad factors that are driving the price at the pump.Fox covered Big Oil hearing for over three times as long as CNN and MSNBC combinedFox leveraged the Big Oil hearing to defend the industry and redirect blame at BidenOn April 6, nearly every hour on Fox News — from 4 a.m. to 7 p.m. EDT — featured coverage of the congressional hearing on the oil industry and gas prices. The vast majority of this coverage ran cover for the industry while shoring up one of the network’s most dominant narratives around gas prices — that Biden is to blame.The claim is false; presidents and their policies have little effect on the price at the pump in the short term and even less impact on how gas is priced in the global market. It also ignores the fact that prices have been rebounding since economies across the globe began reopening from the COVID-19 lockdowns last year. But that hasn’t stopped Fox News from repeatedly tethering gas price hikes to Biden’s policies.Fox’s coverage of the hearing started with the network’s early morning program,Fox & Friends First. Fox Business correspondent Cheryl Caseonereported on the hearing and cited “misguided policies from the administration” as the key drivers of inflation and high energy cost. Other segments throughout the day highlighted industry talking points, including the claim that “rhetoric from the Biden administration” has had a “chilling effect” on oil production. Anchor Martha MacCullum began her coverage of the Big Oil hearing on The Story with Martha MacCullum by highlighting the findings of a recent Fox poll (a self-fulfilling prophecy) that “Republicans and 68% of registered voters say that the Biden administration is to blame for high prices at the pump.”Video From the April 6, 2022, episode of Fox News' The Story with Martha MacCallumIn defense of oil companies, Fox host and guests, which included oil industry executives, suggested they were a scapegoat for Biden’s failed policies. Appearing on America’s Newsroom, American Petroleum Institute CEO Mike Sommers said:“We all know that the real reasonfor high prices are a consequence of low production because of some of these Biden administration policies, but also some other factors that are going on throughout the world. So — but this is a typical blame game we see all the time on Capitol Hill. It is pretty outrageous, though, that they're hauling American executives that supply 11 million American jobs up before Congress to blame them for something that they themselves can be blamed for.”Similarly, Dan Eberhart, another oil industry CEO, appeared on America Reports and called the hearing a “big show trial.”[anti-commie]Earlier in the program congressional correspondent Chad Pergram began his report by saying: “Democrats who control the House, Senate, and White House are struggling to address the price surge, so they need a scapegoat. Oil companies. Attacking big business is good politics for the Democratic base.They tried to focus on profits and turned on the witnesses.”In reality, the industry’s record profits and related decisions to not increase production at a time consumers are hurting from high energy costs seems to expose something wrong, if not unjust, that should be examined by policymakers.Some segments went so far as to defend Big Oil’s record profits, including by highlighting the losses the industry faced during the early phases of the pandemic when gas demand plummeted due to nationwide stay-at-home ordinances. Anchor Sandra Smith on America Reports listed all the major oil companies’ losses and profits over the past two years, saying that it was important context to understand the profit loss in 2020 as the companies are being “demonized” for profiting in 2021.Video From the April 6, 2022, episode of Fox News' America ReportsNotably, while oil industry profits did dip during the pandemic, CEO salaries did not. According to an analysis by BailoutWatch, reported by Gizmodo, oil executives' salaries remained intact in 2020 as the industry was laying off workers while receiving federal handouts:“The analysis finds that at a dozen oil companies—including big names like Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Phillips 66—CEO pay in 2020 was more than 100 times that of the median worker’s pay. All of those companies laid people off last year, including thenine companies that collectively got $4.8 billion in federal bailout money.”CNN and MSNBC missed an opportunity to hold Big Oil accountableCNN and MSNBC dedicated only 10 minutes and 4 minutes, respectively, to covering the April 6 hearing — even as the issue of high gas prices remains a mainstay of cable news. One segment on CNN accounted for nearly all of CNN’s coverage — an over 7-minute joint interview on CNN Newsroom with Ana Cabrera withRobert Reich, a public policy professor and former labor secretary, and Daniel Raimi, energy analyst with Resources for the Future.The segment served, in part, as an example of how CNN and MSNBC could have used the hearing to more robustly cut through reductive and agenda-driven industry and right-wing media talking points to provide a more holistic understanding of why gas prices are high and what tools are available to help alleviate cost to consumers.Video From the April 6, 2022, episode of CNN Newsroom with Ana CabreraThe majority of MSNBC’s 4 minutes of hearing coverage was aired in the closing moments of The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle. Host Stephanie Ruhle first laid out the contrasting positions by Democrats and Republicans overseeing the hearing and then told her viewers:   “This might be a good time to let you know thatmembers of this very subcommittee received a whopping $383,000 from Big Oil. And according to the FEC, 97% of that money went to Republicans. So, what did the oil executives have to say about the high prices Americans are paying at the pump? They said it's not their fault.”VideoCitationFrom the April 6, 2022, episode of MSNBC's The 11th Hour With Stephanie RuhleWhile good, both segments only scratched the surface of the information (on gas prices) and accountability (of the oil industry).In fact, in October, CNN and MSNBC managed to devote a modest amount of coverage to a congressional hearing on Big Oil disinformation, providing a glimmer of what accountability journalism could look like if cable news shows began seriously interrogating the fossil fuel industry. But the sparse coverage of this latest hearing represents a failure on part of the networks to both build on that accountability and, particularly in this moment, provide necessary context around high prices.Fox News is shaping discussion around climate and energy issuesThe April 6 hearing is not the first time Fox News has dominated coverage of key climate and energy actions or newsworthy moments. After the Green New Deal was introduced in 2019, Fox News relentlessly attacked the climate and justice actions and hammered the same messaging — tethering the proposal to radical socialism, climate alarmism, and economic devastation, while vilifying those who champion it. In comparison, other TV news networks made only a cursory attempt to articulate what the Green New Deal is and what it would accomplish. As a result, for Fox viewers, the Green New Deal has become synonymous with extreme socialism manifested by a fake climate crisis.In the month following candidate Joe Biden unveiling his climate agenda in July 2019, Fox News aired 7 times the number of segments CNN aired and more than 4 times the segments aired on MSNBC. In fact, the network’s coverage of energy and climate issues in the fall months of the 2020 presidential campaign played a role shaping the related presidential debate questions.After Biden took office on January 27, 2021, Fox spent approximately 1 hour and 50 minutes that day discussing Biden’s day one executive orders (including canceling the Keystone XL pipeline). CNN spent nearly half as much time, at approximately 53 minutes, MSNBC spent 1 hour and 24 minutes discussing the topics. While this data may not be as striking, it doesn’t include the amount of time Fox spent covering, for example, the canceled Keystone XL pipeline long after the other networks had moved on. Even now, Fox News has still repeatedly invoked the scrapped pipeline as one of the reasons contributing to the current energy crisis, even though the pipeline would not have had an impact on gas prices.It is troubling to see CNN and MSNBC repeatedly yield coverage of major climate and energy stories to Fox News, and it’s time for the networks to step up.Methodology...=api has very deep bench like 100 directors 2014, how did he get gig?boehner mafia=API hired Sommers, a one-time chief of staff to former House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), to be its leader in 2018.the fossil fuel industry has been using the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine as a pretext to call for continued, and deepened, reliance on its dirty and dangerous products. Fox News’ coverage throughout the crisis has largely echoed the industry’s talking points, specifically the idea that America needs to drill and produce more oil. Critiques from President Joe Biden and his administration related to the industry's untapped leases and record profits have also prompted Fox and guests to leap to Big Oil’s defense in recent weeks. In the face of another onslaught of fossil fuel talking points from Fox News, other cable news networks have not held the industry accountable by reporting on its role in driving the climate crisis, polluting the environment, and exacerbating geopolitical conflicts. In pivotal moments like this, viewers deserve to learn how our reliance on fossil fuels is leaving us more vulnerable to crises ranging from climate change to foreign wars.## Fox News has absolved Big Oil of any responsibility for energy price increases, while accusing the Biden administration of scapegoatingThe fossil fuel industry has waged a billion-dollar campaign to erode the public consensus on climate change, fool the public about its commitment to addressing the climate crisis, and thwart any climate action that could impact its bottom line. The industry’s spin campaign has continued as the crisis in Ukraine escalated, causing economic disruption around the world. Faced with public majorities that are outraged at Russian aggression against Ukraine and “favor developing alternative energy, including wind and solar, over increasing production of fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas,” the industry has instead chosen to obfuscate its refusal to produce more oil and gas, pad its record 2021 profits via anti-consumerist practices, and move to deepen the world’s reliance on its products.And one of its biggest media cheerleaders has been Fox News.As tensions between Russia and Ukraine ratcheted up, Fox has been nearly unrelenting in pushing a narrative that the Biden administration’s climate policies emboldened Russian President Vladmir Putin to invade. This push includesFox figures mentioning the canceled Keystone pipeline approximately 141 times in segments about the Ukraine crisis from February 22-28 and mentioning “energy independence” or “energy security” – industry talking points to promote more domestic drilling for oil and gas – at least 329 times from February 24 through March 9.After Biden’s March 8 announcement that the United States was banning Russian fossil fuel imports, Fox News hosts and guests blamed him for instituting the same policy that they had previously demanded – all while praising oil and gas companies as “the greatest industry around the world,” deflecting criticism of them as “unpatriotic,” and arguing they are “basically our national defense.”On the March 8 episode of *America’s Newsroom*, for example, anchor Sandra Smith parroted the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) debunked talking point about the Biden administration discouraging fossil fuel investment.Fox host and former Trump adviser Larry Kudlow attacked the Biden administration for criticizing the industry’s price gouging and record profits on the March 8 episode of *America Reports*.Later that evening on Hannity, host Sean Hannity amplified API talking points that the Biden administration is making it hard to produce more oil; allowed fossil fuel shillDaniel Turner to claim that the Biden administration “wants to send a message to the environmental left” by attacking the industry; and gave energy analyst Phil Flynn a platform to claim that “there’s absolutely no gouging” in gas prices and that the Federal Reserve has been “weaponized” against oil and gas companies. [vid 8th]the drumbeat of Big Oil talking points continued in the ensuing days.On the March 9 episode of :{**The Faulkner Focus**:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, anchor Harris Faulkner hosted API President Mike Sommersto blame Biden for high energy prices: “Some of the policies that are being pursued right now by this administration are putting us on a road to more dependence – not independence.”Similarly, Fox host Jesse Watters hosted oil company CEO Dan Eberhart on the March 10 episode ofJesse Watters Primetimeto push for more domestic drilling and complained that the Biden administration has been treating the industry as “war profiteers.”The narrative was still being pushed into this new week. On the March 15 episode of :{The Story with Martha MacCallum:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, Fox News anchor Sandra Smith suggested that the Biden administration should decrease energy prices for “the American family, the American consumer who is suffering right now” in part by taking a “friendlier approach to the oil and gas industry." Smith repeated this and other arguments to “increase and incentivize drilling” on the March 15 episode of :{**The Five**:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, citing API’s claim that the Biden administration should demonstrate it's not out to “demonize oil companies.” Fox personality Charles Payne echoed the idea that the Biden administration was “demonizing” oil companies during the March 16 episode of America Reports. [vid]there is a desperate need for cable news to ramp up its accountability journalismDespite not promoting these false narratives during the Ukraine crisis as much as Fox News, CNN and MSNBC have largely failed to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for exploiting geopolitical conflicts for profit while driving the climate crisis and degrading the environment for billions of people. The networks have also featured very little coverage about the myriad benefits of clean energy, which include economic stability and energy security (clean energy generation is more price stable and politically stable than fossil fuels).There is a very clear story that needs to be told about the fossil fuel industry, especially in this moment of rising gas prices and wartime sanctions. As explained by the nonprofit environmental law organizationEarthjustice: “Gas prices are not dictated by White House policy, and the industry’s argument that federal leasing and permitting policies are the source of high gas prices is a flat-out lie crafted to deceive the American public.”> Chasing more fossil fuel leases on public lands and waters would increase industry profits but wouldn’t do anything to decrease today’s gas prices at the pump. It also would keep sending us down the same road of fossil fuel production that is the main driver of the worsening climate crisis. The industry gets the profits, and the American people get handed the resulting wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and coastal flooding caused and exacerbated by climate change. There’s a better road to go down, and it’s the road of clean energy. For as long as we’re addicted to oil for energy, Americans will be subject to big cost increases when a foreign dictator decides to invade another country or there is a change in the world economy.As a key cog in the fossil fuel industry’sdisinformation network, Fox News will never cover this reality. But CNN and MSNBC can no longer afford to miss opportunities to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable in favor of echoing and **amplifying**Big Oil talking pointswhile the window for meaningful climate action is rapidly closing.https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-heaps-praise-fossil-fuel-industry-russian-war-ukraine-ragesalpha news syndicator/aggregator? "bios coming soon" new lamestream press will not cover BS(Daily Caller News Foundation)— Major U.S. oil and gas industry groups urged the Biden administration Thursday to boost domestic energy production amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine.On Thursday, the global price of oil surged past $100 per barrel for the first time in nearly eight years after Russia unleashed a full-scale offensive against Ukraine. Oil prices are the largest factor in determining gas prices for fossil fuel companies.Russia provided more oil to the U.S. than any other country except Canada between January 2021 and November 2021, U.S. Energy Information Administration data showed. The country, which exported nearly 65% of the 10.5 million barrels of crude oil per day it drilled in 2020, isEurope’slargest oil supplier as well.On Thursday, President Joe Biden unveiled another round of economic sanctions targeting Russia along with Western allies. The president acknowledged during remarks at the White House that energy costs, including pump prices, may increase as a result of the sweeping sanctions package, but he said it was critical to respond aggressively to Russia.“API condemns Russia’s invasion into Ukraine, andAmerican natural gas and oil producers have a critical role to play in supporting our European allies with access to a stable supply of reliable and affordable energy,” American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Mike Sommers said in a statement.“With both geopolitical tensions and energy costs rising, American energy leadership can serve as astabilizingforce while strengthening global energysecurity,” Sommers said. “Our industry is committed to working with the administration to do everything possible to minimize any impacts on U.S. consumers while supporting our allies overseas.”API represents around 600 different energy firms, making it one of the largest U.S. oil and gas industry groups. Another major industry group, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), also stressed the need for domestic production, saying it would benefit both the interests of the U.S. and its allies.“The United States has shown its global energy dominanceover the past decade. Unfortunately, this has been threatened by the current Administration’s policies against domestic natural gas and oil production,” IPAA COO Jeff Eshelman told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement. “Make no mistake, natural gas and oil production here at home benefits not only our nation, but also our worldwide allies. For America, it means less reliance on oil imports from unfriendly countries.”Eshelman added that greater American energy production means “freedom from hostile nations” for people across the world.Additionally, Power the Future, a group that advocates for U.S. energy independence, wrote a letter to the White House on Thursday, urging the administration to reverse course on its energy policies. The letter, obtained by the DCNF, said the president’s energy agenda has proven to be a failure.Since taking office, Biden has waged a war on fossil fuels, nixing the Keystone XL oil pipeline, ditching an oil drilling project in Alaska, staying silent on a court ruling that prohibited an offshore drilling lease in the Gulf of Mexico, attempting to ban new drilling leases on federal lands and making it harder for utilities to gain approval for natural gas projects.The U.S. is set to return to being a net importer of crude oil in 2022 under the Biden administration, according to federal projections. The U.S. became a net exporter of total energy in 2019, factoring in both coal and natural gas trade, and a net oil exporter in 2020.Meanwhile, Europe has faced an energy crisis throughout the winter as wind power has underperformed and countries turned to natural gas imported from Russia. Russia provides Europe with almost 47% of its natural gas supply, the latest European Union data showed.Russia, though, manipulated gas flows to Europe in recent months, causing massive price surges. On Tuesday, Germany halted the certification of direct Russia-to-Germany natural gas pipeline Nord Stream 2, which was completed in September 2021 after the Biden administration stripped sanctions on the $11 billion project.The American Gas Association (AGA), a group that represents U.S. energy utilities, said the Biden administration must heed the lessons from the European crisis. The current cost of natural gas in the U.S. is $4.38 per million British thermal units (mmBtu) compared to the roughly $40 per mmBtu Europeans are paying.“With the unfolding chaos abroad and disruption to Europe’s energy markets, natural gas prices for America’s homeowners and business are expected to remain stable,” AGA President and CEO Karen Harbert told the DCNF in a statement. “America’s abundant natural gas supply and vast delivery system insulates us from instability across the ocean and unstable leaders with reckless political agendas.”“But we cannot ignore the fact that there are areas of the country that have refused to build the necessary infrastructure to bring natural gas to customers that need it, resulting in reliance on shipments of liquified natural gas from abroad, thehigh prices and instabilitythat go along with that,” she said.Harbert noted that European consumers are facing significantly higher energy bills because leaders have “turned their backs on natural gas and the delivery infrastructure.”“We should not follow their example,” she said.[nordstream 2?!]On Jan. 25, as tensions increased along Ukraine’s borders, the White House announced it would help facilitate greater non-Russian natural gas flows into Europe. Such imports would come from North Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the U.S.http://web.archive.org/web/20180501212515/http://www.investmentcouncil.org/the-council/staff/mike-sommers-2/Mike Sommers is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Investment Council.  Prior to joining the AIC,Sommers spent two decades in public service in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the White House.From Congress to the West Wing, Sommers crafted and executed a wide range of political and legislative strategies centered on the nation’s most pressing issues.  Speaker of the House Paul Ryan called him “one of the best people I have come across in public service” and “smart, steady and with unquestioned integrity.” House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer said he is “well known and well liked on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and incredibly talented both as a manager and policy expert.”Most recently, Sommers was Chief of Staff to Speaker of the House John A. Boehner (R-OH).  In this capacity, he was the top staffer in the House of Representatives and advised the Speaker and House leadership on all matters before the Congress.  Sommers has been at the center of every major policy dispute in the last decade and successfully negotiated bipartisan compromises on landmark legislation, including the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) in 2008, the resolution of the fiscal cliff in 2013, the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015 and trade promotion authority in 2015.Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, named Sommers one of the top staffers on Capitol Hill for each of the past 10 years and in 2015 named him one of the top 50 staffers in the last 50 years.  Sommers has been profiled in Politico, The Hill and National Journal.  In 2005, he was selected by his peers to head of the Republican Chiefs of Staff association.Prior to being named Chief of Staff to the Speaker, Sommers served Boehner in other capacities, including Deputy Chief of Staff, Policy Director, Legislative Director and Press Secretary.Sommers also served as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush at the National Economic Council at the White House in 2005.  In this capacity, he advised the President on agriculture, trade and food policy.A native of Naperville, Illinois, Sommers is a graduate of the honors program at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.  While an undergraduate at Miami, he was awarded the President’s Distinguished Service Medal – the highest honor given to a Miami undergraduate.He is married to Jill Sommers, a former Commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).  They have three children and live in Alexandria, Virginia.=2x?https:/**/influencemap.org/**influencer/American-Petroleum-Institute-APIsum:Climate Lobbying Overview: The American Petroleum Institute appears to be broadly hostile to progressive climate policy. It does not seem to fully support the need to drastically cut emissions to limit global temperature increase to below 2C and seems to have pushed a deregulatory agenda over ambitious climate action. It does not seem to support the transition of the energy mix, emphasizing the importance of oil and gas to the American economy and opposing measures to limit fossil fuel development. Furthermore, it also appears to not support several other policies intended to cut emissions such as renewable fuel standards and carbon taxation.Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: The American Petroleum Institute appears to be broadly unsupportive of progressive climate policy in its top-line messaging. Although in various comments throughout 2020, it has indicated general support for unspecified levels of emissions reductions to respond to climate change, this does not appear to be aligned with IPCC advice. For example, in July 2020, it appeared to question the feasibility of reaching net-zero emissions, following statements in December 2019 that the technology “does not yet exist” to limit temperature rise to well below 2°C.It appears to emphasize that climate policies should not compromise economic growth, as well as appearingto prioritize market-based mechanisms over other kinds of policy. In March 2021, it was reported that the API would change its position and start to support carbon pricingas the "primary government climate policy instrument to reduce CO2 emissions", while still appearing to not support other "prescriptive regulatory action". Comments from CEO Mike Sommers in December 2020 also appear to suggest that government regulation to respond to climate change is unnecessary. In his keynote speech for the API's annual State of American Energy report in 2021, Sommers said 'Mandates get us nowhere', and that the surest way to bring recovery to a stop following COVID-19 was with 'more regulations, more taxes, more restrictions on access' to federal lands and waters for oil and gas development.The American Petroleum Institute has not taken a formal position on theParis Agreement but in December 2019 stated it supported the “ambition” of the agreement. This position was repeated in its 2021 State of American Energy report, however, in the same report, API called the goals of the Paris Agreement ‘aggressive’ and seemed to be ambiguous as to whether the U.S. should participate in meeting the goals.Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: The American Petroleum Institute appears to be highly opposed to specific climate-related regulations and since the 2016 US election, the group seems to have promoted a deregulatory agenda in the country over ambitious policy to respond to climate change. API has continued to promote this deregulatory agenda in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 crisis, advocating President Trump waive testing and reporting requirements for a range of policies, including those relevant for GHG emissions.The API has also continued to oppose specific policies intended to cut emissions. In October 2020, it stated it would oppose any carbon tax that would increase the price of US oil and gas exports, following comments from February 2019 submitted to the Pennsylvania House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee that “New and increased taxes… can only slow growth and investment.”In March 2021, the API announced an apparent change in its position to support carbon pricing, but still stopped short of explicitly endorsing a carbon tax. In addition, the API has heavily criticized the Renewable Fuels Standard, tweeting in April 2020 that “it is time to get rid of this broken mandate”. Furthermore, in November 2019, the API directly advocated against the EPA’s proposed increases in biofuel blending requirements under the Renewable Energy Standard. API has again called for the repeal of the RFS in January 2021.[ETHANOL?]Until January 2021, the API appeared to strongly oppose regulation of methane emissions, supporting the EPA rollback of methane regulations in August 2020, reportedly **having previously met with White House and EPA staff in an attempt to loosen these regulations**.In addition, in the first quarter of 2020, API appears to have **opposed**more ambitious oil well bonding legislation that would require industry to commit more money to fix methane leaks from abandoned wells.In January 2021, however, the API appears to have reversedits position on the federal and direct regulation of methane and has now stated it supports such a policy. This follows Total S.A revoking its membership to API after the industry association's State of American Energy address. In its communications on methane regulation, API has stated it would support 'sensible' and 'workable' regulations. It remains unclear at this point what API deems sensible and workable with regard to methane regulation. In May 2021, the API appeared to not fully support an ambitious implementation of methane regulation under the PIPES Act, stating in a submission to that "stringent regulatory mandates... must consider the cost to ratepayers and the ability of utilities to effectively comply". In September 2021, the API coordinated with other oil and gas industry groups to send a joint letter to the Committee on Environment and Public Works opposing the Methane Emissions Reduction Act of 2021, which would introduce a tax on methane emissions from oil and gas operations.Positioning on Energy Transition:API does not appear to support the transition of the energy mix.In its public messaging, it has repeatedly stressed the importance of oil and gas to the US economy and US national security and in June 2019 argued that oil and gas “will supply more than half of America’s energy needs for decades to come”.[ROWE]API’s preferred method of reducing emissions appears to becoal-to-natural-gas switching, which it also claimsis essential to support renewable energy expansion. However, it shows mixed support for government measures to actually phase coal out of the energy mix. In August 2019, it appeared to oppose government intervention to prohibit new or expanded coal mines, but in May 2019, it opposed legislation in Ohio that would introduce subsidies for coal power plants and in July 2018, it appeared to oppose federal plans to bailout uneconomic coal plants.It appears to have lobbied heavily in favor of measures that will help maintain a high GHG energy mix, for example in November 2020, supporting the removal of restrictions on oil and gas production in theArctic National Wildlife Refuge, as well as suggesting punitive measures, such as preventing access to Covid-19 relief funding, for banks that have chosen not to fund Arctic-drilling projects.API appears to oppose government interventionthat will limit fossil fuel development. For example, in September 2020, API opposed an expanded moratorium on offshore oil and gas development off the coast of Florida and in November 2020, CEO Mike Sommers stated that API would use ‘“every tool at its disposal” including legal action’ to block a proposed ban on fracking on federal land and water.Furthermore, statements from August 2020 suggest API appears to support continued subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, arguing these are “tax loopholes and deductions available to all industries”. These positions have been repeated in its 2021 State of American Energy Report, in which API argues against a ban on fracking, opposing restrictions on federal waters and land for oil and gas production, the weakening of the National Environmental Policy Act and renewalof the Nationwide Permit 12 program– both of which serve to make permitting approval processes for oil and gas infrastructure quicker and easier.In addition, API does not appear to support the electrification of transport. In the first half of 2020, API launched the Transportation Fairness Alliance, a coalition described by Desmog as intended “to counter policies designed to accelerate the transition away from petroleum-powered transportation”. API appears to have opposed several specific policies to encourage the electrification of transport in 2020, including the rebate for drivers who trade in ICE vehicles for EVs as well as financial incentives for electric vehicles. In its 2021 State of American Energy report, API again opposed policies designed to incentivize the uptake of electric vehicles, arguing that subsidies, credits and sales mandates, that favor electric vehicles, like those in California, would ‘hinder America’s progress’.* * *InfluenceMap :{:{Score }::{F}:=off bshttps://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/blog/2021/02/08/reasons-to-rethink-a-rushed-ev-transitionFebruary 8, 2021Across America, we want our roadways to be safer, cleaner and more accessible. Electric-vehicle (EV) technologies may appear to offer clear-cut solutions to modern challenges, but government action to limit Americans’ transportation choice could leave everyday drivers high and dry.:{What Americans May Not Know:}: New cars, SUVs and pickup trucks that are powered by internal combustion engines have become much more efficient over the last few decades. This is in large part because the U.S. energy and automobile industries have invested in lightweight innovations to improve vehicle fuel efficiency while keeping passengers safe. Indeed, multiple studies show that, on a lifecycle basis, different automobile powertrains result in similar greenhouse gas emissions.Relatedly, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studies have concluded that plastics and composite materials – which are primarily manufactured using petroleum feedstocks – can considerably reduce the weight of vehicles while meeting performance and safety requirements. And don’t forget today’s cars are about 99% cleaner for most tailpipe pollutants compared to vehicles in 1970.To be clear, there is room on our roads for every type of powertrain – including EVs. But we should be careful to avoid government interventions that disrupt the marketplace, limit consumer choice and produce unintended results.Here are three ways a rushed EV transition would ultimately impact American drivers:- :{Increased Vehicle Inequity:}: Right now, consumers can claim a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for qualifying EV purchases, but these credits disproportionately benefit upper-income households, whose vehicles are effectively subsidized by other taxpayers. Since 2016 about 80% of the federal EV tax credits have been claimed by taxpayers with annual incomes of $100,000 or more.- :{Depleted Roadway Funds:}: EV adoption has inadvertently contributed to shortages in infrastructure funding, as EV drivers bypass the gasoline taxes that support the federal Highway Trust Fund. Typical drivers pay about 18 cents per gallon of gas in federal taxes, plus an average of 31 cents at the state level. Many EV owners are exempt from these taxes.- :{Every Driver and Non-Driver Pays for EV Charging Infrastructure:}: Relying on electric utility companies to fund EV charging infrastructure will result in electric utilities raising their customers’ rates to fund the development of EV charging supply equipment. This will unfairly burden non-EV drivers, and those without vehicles, by forcing them to fund EV charging infrastructure build-out that they may never use. Further, it eliminates competition from non-utilities who want to get into the business of providing charging services.Bottom line – efforts to subsidize EV adoption can be costly for taxpayers and consumers.Meanwhile, some leaders in the public and private sectors alike have gone a step further, suggesting a variety of bans on vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. Such proposals are disconnected from the reality of our nation’s transportation and climate solutions. It is important to keep in mind that EVs still represent less than 2% of the U.S. auto market – and only about 3% of new car sales globally. Motorists continue to choose traditional powertrains for a variety of benefits, including range, flexibility and cargo capacity.As the U.S. balances vehicle production with consumer preferences – and climate solutions with infrastructure demands – lawmakers should support fuel- and technology-neutral policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without resorting to the seemingly simple solution of choosing a single technology. American consumers are the best people to determine what vehicles they want to drive; they don’t want lawmakers making that choice for them. Government policies should work for all Americans, and the road to a stronger and more sustainable transportation future begins with consumer choice and fairness.### About The AuthorMike Sommers is the 15:{th}: chief executive of API since its founding nearly a century ago. Prior to coming to API, Mike led the American Investment Council, a trade association representing many of the nation’s leading private equity and growth capital firms and other business partners. He spent two decades in critical staff leadership positions in the U.S. House of Representatives and the White House, including chief of staff for then-House Speaker John Boehner. Mike is a native of Naperville, Illinois, and a graduate of the honors program at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Mike and Jill Sommers, a former commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, have three children and live in Alexandria, Virgini=https://yyy.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-companies-climate-crisis-pr-spendingno lnx nice gfx brulleHow the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation‘From my perspective every indication of this evidence is once that closet door gets blown open, the skeletons are going to come tumbling out,’ said Geoffrey Supran.Activists say Democratic climate proposals won’t be able to pass until lawmakers put a stop to oil companies trying to rebrand themselvesEmily Holden in WashingtonWed 8 Jan 2020America’s oil companies are trying to rebrand themselves as part of the solution to the climate crisis, launching a campaign to counter top Democrats’ proposals to rapidly cut pollution from the power plants and cars that run on the industry’s petroleum and natural gas.They say natural gas – a fossil fuel that emits heat-trapping carbon dioxide – is helping to slow climate disruption by providing an alternative to coal.How vested interests tried to turn the world against climate scienceRead more]“We’re taking our message of energy progress to every corner of the country to show just what’s at stake in Washington and in state capitols around the country,” said :{Mike Sommers, CEO of the oil trade group the American Petroleum Institute (API), }:on a press call announcing the plan.:{The campaign is part of a strategy in which the oil industry has funneled billions of dollars into its defense, threatening to outpace climate action advocates, say frustrated environmental activists who are increasingly calling on Democrats in Congress to take a tougher line on the sector.}::{}::{But Sommers depicted a dark future if a presidential candidate who wants to ban fracking for natural gas wins the 2020 election: millions of jobs lost, hundreds of billions of dollars more for household energy costs and a global recession}:.However, opponents of the industry say the only path to significant US climate action is through legislation and that lawmakers won’t be able to legislate unless they reveal how the industry has controlled the public dialogue around climate change and put a stop to its misdeeds.Geoffrey Supran, a research associate who studies global warming politics at Harvard University, is urging House committees to demand more information from oil companies about their influence over public policy.Supran said obtaining corporate documents is “one of the most important actions Congress could take to address the climate crisis”.:{“The reality is that as much as we know about fossil fuel interests’ denial and delay, we’ve really found those skeletons in the closet just by looking through a tiny keyhole – everything we know is based on just a few hundred documents scrounged from various sources,” Supran said. “From my perspective every indication of this evidence is once that closet door gets blown open, the skeletons are going to come tumbling out.”}:Walking through Washington’s national airport this holiday season, travelers saw a type of advertisement that is becoming more mainstream – it pops up on social media, in commercial breaks for streaming video services, in newspapers and on the radio.A friendly-looking older woman in a hard hat beams at the camera. “Thanks to natural gas, the US is leading the way in reducing emissions,” the sign reads.The ad campaign, called :{We’re On It, is sponsored by API}: – which represents the oil companies that have contributed significantly to the climate crisis.:{While it’s true that US climate pollution is declining in large part because of the switch from coal to natural gas, scientists say far more drastic action is needed to slow climate change. And forecasts show natural gas threatening continued progress.}::{As the American public has become more aware of the climate crisis, oil companies have fought back.}::{}::{Over roughly the last three decades, five major US oil companies have spent a total of at least $3.6bn on advertisements – not counting their investments in public relations programs like sponsored beach clean-ups, or their influence through trade associations, dark money groups and campaign donations.}:Activists gather with signs outside the American Petroleum Institute during the global climate action week in Washington DC, on 23 September 2019.]Advertising spending has increased as politicians have paid more attention to climate change and API’s campaign comes as progressive candidates bidding for the White House, such as the US senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, propose to ban fracking – a drilling method that has unlocked huge supplies of natural gas and driven down the cost of the fuel.Any renewed investigation from Congress could reveal more about how the industry has tried to sway public opinion.Investigative reporting has already shown that Exxon has known since at least the 1960s that its products were causing global warming. But Exxon has fought back, saying it is the victim of “a coordinated campaign perpetuated by activist groups with the aim of stigmatizing ExxonMobil”.:{Exxon touts itself instead as an answer to the climate crisis. The top advertisement on Exxon’s YouTube page touts research on making biofuels from algae in order to cut climate pollution, but the technique is currently prohibitively expensive, and the research represents a tiny portion of Exxon’s budget.}:In response to questions from the Guardian, an Exxon spokesman, Casey Norton, said Exxon is “committed to doing our part”.“The world faces a dual challenge: meeting growing demand for energy while also reducing environmental impacts, including the risks of climate change,” Norton said.Norton maintains that “all forms of energy are needed”, including natural gas and renewables, although scientists have concluded humans will have to stop using fossil fuels entirely to stem the crisis.:{In the call with reporters, API’s CEO took a similar stance. He acknowledged the industry has a responsibility to help slow emissions that are causing rising temperatures, but he said the demand for affordable energy is growing and American fossil fuel companies will meet it}:.:{Pressed to commit to any significant goal to curb emissions, Sommers said API could back some bipartisan legislation to incentivize technology that would capture carbon dioxide so that it cannot enter the atmosphere.[big pilot subsidized clean coal boondoggle just concert to anga]}:“That’s legislation that’s supported by far-right Republicans and far-left Democrats, but it’s some place in the middle where we think we can meet and we can work together on this key priority,” Sommers said.Critics of the oil industry say the Democrat-led House should be aggressive in seeking to counter the industry’s narrative. Some want Democrats to call executives into hearings and subpoena internal records about their influence campaigns – one of the most powerful tools available to Congress.But that hasn’t happened. Instead of going directly for the oil companies, House committees have instead been holding dozens of hearings and introducing legislation about ways to cut pollution and help people affected by the climate crisis.“Our oversight staff decided that OK, rather than kind of punching an industry that’s already pretty down in the public image, there are plenty of other things they also needed and wanted to pursue, so subpoenaing big oil just didn’t really rise to the top of the heap,” the staffer said.Supran, who works with Harvard climate politics expert Naomi Oreskes, says they have a collection of information that could help Democrats determine which questions to ask and which documents to demand.“Historical record points to a number of individuals, documents, and questions that could help Congress get to the bottom of how the fossil fuel regime misled America,” Supran said.The other route – which Democrats are already pursuing – is state lawsuits against companies. But those challenges could take much longer and aren’t guaranteed to succeed.Robert Brulle, a visiting professor of environmental sociology at Brown University who co-authored the research tallying oil spending on ads, said the findings are just the tip of the iceberg. Brulle has previously found that more than $2bn was spent lobbying Congress on climate legislation between 2000 and 2016.He says lawmakers should investigate the oil industry the way the former congressman Henry Waxman took on tobacco companies in the 1990s.“I think what we’ll find is that the fossil fuel campaigns are going to dwarf what the tobacco industry did. It’s an order of magnitude larger,” Brulle said.Some accuse Democrats of fearing a backlash from the oil industry – which still donates to Democratic campaigns. They say moderate Democrats might be trying to stay civil with major companies because it will be easier to pass climate legislation with their support.But it’s hard to imagine the industry backing substantial action that would limit oil production and use – which scientists say is required to avoid catastrophe.I think what we’ll find is that the fossil fuel campaigns are going to dwarf what the tobacco industry didRobert BrulleSo far, congressional efforts have only scratched the surface of the sector’s influence.:{ In October, the oversight committee reviewed evidence of how much Exxon has known about the climate crisis and for how long. The Democrat-only climate committee in the Senate also held a hearing on dark money and climate change. The Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse urged his colleagues in the House to use their majority to get tougher with oil companies – subpoenaing their records if necessary.}:“When we catch the fossil fuel industry spending money in these campaigns, we’re only seeing a sliver of the total operation,” Whitehouse said in a more recent interview with the Guardian. “I think it’s hard to counter their message effectively because remember – they have a:{ }::{$600bn annual subsidy that they’re defending}::{,}: according to the [International Monetary Fund].“The idea that some other entity, particularly some struggling charitable organization, is going to be able to go toe-to-toe in spending and outspend them is not really feasible.”:{Despite fossil fuel companies massive spending, they have continued to lose public support. Elected officials just haven’t followed the shift.}::{}::{A majority – 60% of Americans – want to “dramatically reduce” fossil fuel use in 10 or 20 years, according to Gallup. And between 2013 and 2019, the percentage of people who wanted to emphasize oil production has dropped from 46% to 28%.}:“If you take climate change seriously, then you have to think about what your path is to getting a serious climate bill,” Whitehouse said. “And the path to a serious climate bill requires disabling the fossil fuel industry’s obstruction apparatus that has been the thing that has prevented that from happening.”https://gizmodo.com/the-big-oil-money-behind-the-members-of-congress-who-fu-1846020442earthernp lnxThe Big Oil Money Behind the Members of Congress Who Fueled the Capitol AttackByBrian Kahn and Dhruv Mehrotra1/08/21On Wednesday, Chevron decried the assault on the Capitol by a mob of violent extremists hellbent on halting a democratic process. ,“We call for the peaceful transition of the U.S. government,” the biggest oil company in the U.S. tweeted. “The violence in Washington, D.C. tarnishes a two-century tradition of respect for the rule of law.”It’s hard to argue with that. Two of the key ingredients for the violent insurrection were 123 House Republicans who signed onto a Texas lawsuit full of baseless claims and legal theories and more than a dozen Republican senators who invoked conspiracy theories to challenge the election results. Many of those people are in power thanks to the political donations of none other than Chevron. The company is hardly alone; other fossil fuel companies and the industry’s main trade group have also plunged money into the coffers of those who objected to a free and fair election.[The Climate Crisis Will Be Steroids for FascismThe Capitol has a police force with a $500 million budget, and yet it failed at its one job on…Read more]Eartherpulled data directly from the Federal Election Commission for individual donations and aggregator site Open Secrets to see just how muchcorporate PACs of Chevron and Exxon, two of the largest oil companies in the U.S., and the American Petroleum Institute, the main trade group, gave members of Congress who helped inspire Wednesday’s violence with their actions and rhetoric. We also reached out to these entities to see if they would continue to fund the campaigns of any members of Congress who challenged the election results.:{In Chevron’s case, the company’s corporate PAC donated $745,000 to those House members over the past decade and more than $127,000 to the seditious senators.}: Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, who led the push to challenge election results in states they don’t represent and cheered on protesters, each received $10,000 from Chevron’s PAC in 2018. Cruz also enjoyed a $15,000 donation from the company’s PAC for his Senate run in 2012.Those donations went to helping re-elect Cruz and elect Hawley.On the House side, the PAC has spent $58,000 keeping House Minority Whip Steve Scalise in office. Scalise, who is intimately familiar with politically motivated violence having been shot at a House softball practice in 2017, baselessly said prior to the riots that “there have been serious questions about the integrity of the electoral process.” Other recipients include Rep. Dan Crenshaw ($11,000), who put out a Mission Impossible-style videoglorifying attacking political enemies ahead of the Georgia runoff; Rep. Kevin Brady ($56,500), who began to question the election before the results were even fully in; and Rep. Mark Mullwayne ($17,500), who called the attack on the Capitol a false flag even as police were trying to clear the mob.Exxon hasn’t put out a statement on the Capitol violence, perhaps taking a cue from Chevron getting dragged on Twitter as a result. The company’s PAC has, however, donated a lot of money to those who don’t support the democratic process. It was just as generous as Chevron was with Cruz, giving him $25,000 over the course of his tenure in the Senate. The company goes way back with Sen. Marsha Blackburn, who said she would challenge the results before backing down after the violence; their first donation to her goes back to 2003 when she was running for the House, and they’ve donated to her in every election since, records show.Over the past decade, Exxon’s PAC has kicked nearly $1.5 million to guilty House members, basically twice Chevron’s investment in ending democracy. Scalise ($44,000) again cleaned up as did Brady ($52,000), which isn’t surprising given that they represent major oil and gas extraction and manufacturing regions, though Exxon could fund less seditious candidates and probably still get a decent bang for its buck. It’s also given to Rep. Mo Brooks ($5,000), who also went the false flag route on the attack and also thinks sea level rise is caused by rocks falling into the ocean (sorry, but it’s my favorite fact); Rep. Barry Loudermilk ($17,000), who wanted to decertify Georgia’s results presidential results, which is very convenient for him since he represents a Georgia district; and Rep. Elise Stefanik ($33,500), one of the few women in the Republican caucus to challenge the results, whom Trump praised during impeachment proceedings as a “new Republican Star [sic].”In response to whether Exxon would continue to financially support these members of Congress, the company said: “Thanks for reaching out. We are reviewing the contributions of the PAC.” They did not respond to a request to clarify if that meant they would end their support.:{Then there’s }::{API. The group didn’t put out a statement on Wednesday, but it did retweet President and}::{ CEO Mike Sommers}::{, former chief of staff to ex-House Speaker John Boehner, who decried the violence in his former workplace. Sommers himself kicked $20,000 to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s PAC and $5,600 to Kevin McCarthy for Congress. McCarthy joined Republicans contesting the vote, with Rep. Mo Brooks telling CNN that “Kevin McCarthy’s part of the team.” He voted to decertify the election even after the violence, but he opposes impeaching the president and said on Friday that we should “lower the temperature” after coaxing it to a fever. Then there’s $2,200 for Trump’s re-election itself and $6,600 for two Rep. Steve Scalise-related ventures.}:API’s PAC is the smallest player of the three analyzed here (though to be fair, it’s not a multibillion-dollar company), spending $133,500 on House members who backed decertifying the election. The list contains many of the big oil players mentioned above, which is perhaps unsurprising given the companies it represents.API did not respond to a request for comment asking whether it or Sommers would end support for members who inspired Wednesday’s barbarity that left a multiple people dead, including a Capitol police officer, though Sommers did tweet earlier on Friday that his “heart breaks for the family and friends of the U.S. Capitol Police officer who died as a result of yesterday’s violence.”==no lnx manyMike Rowe’s Discovery+ show Six Degrees is sponsored by the oil industryAndy Dehnart4 Jan. 2021

Six Degrees with Mike Rowe premiered earlier this year on Discovery+, and is now airing Sundays on the Discovery Channel. It’s still a show that was funded by the oil industry, despite Discovery’s insistence that it “is committed to curbing our own impact on the environment.”

Mike Rowe’s 2005 to 2012 reality show Dirty Jobs was terrific, both entertaining and informative, educational without being annoying. On that and the CNN show that followed, Somebody’s Gotta Do It, Mike was an affable host who put the spotlight on the people he was profiling (rather than making it all about himself).

I especially appreciated his mission of highlighting the people who do “the kinds of jobs that make civilized life possible for the rest of us,” as he said during Dirty Jobs’ intro.

So in December, when I received screeners for his new Discovery+ show Six Degrees with Mike Rowe, I was hopeful it’d be similar. On the show, which premiered today on the new subscription streaming service, Mike “poses questions that no one has ever asked, and then, (with a little help from his old buddy Chuck), provides unforgettable answers that prove every single thing is connected,” according to Discovery’s description. For example, one episode ends with him saying, “That is how a horseshoe can find your soulmate,” connecting horseshoes to wifi.

While the anecdotes were interesting, I didn’t find the show compelling enough to keep watching. But then, at the end of episode 101, “How can a horseshoe help you find the perfect soulmate?”, Mike said this:

“Six Degrees is sponsored by the oil and natural gas industry. Why? Because oil and natural gas connects everything. Remember Howard Hughes from just a few scenes ago? Well, before Howard made a fortune in aerospace, he made a fortune in the oil fields. The money that he gave to Hedy Lamarr that she used to help create wifi, that came from oil.”

Ever since Jeff Probst dropped a Target-branded crate on Survivor contestants 20 years ago, I’ve been very used to product integration on reality TV shows. Target, Budweiser, and other company’s sponsorship literally made Survivor possible.

And since then, producers and networks have used product integration of varying kinds—sometimes to make money, but often to just cover the costs of production. So I understand the very real need to get sponsorship.

Yet I also could not recall a host making as explicit a sponsorship statement as Mike Rowe did there, and also was shocked by the actual advertiser: the oil industry?!

On the one hand, it’s nice transparency: Here’s who paid for this. On the other hand, it’s the oil industry.

In another episode, “How Civil War Soldiers Produced This Show,” Mike concluded with this:

“Why is Six Degrees sponsored by the energy industry? Well, that’s a bit like asking why Chuck drinks coffee all day long. When you play a dozen different characters in the course of a single show, you need all the energy you can get. Likewise, when you go to your favorite search engine to find whatever it is you’re looking for, that takes energy, too.

Specifically, it takes electricity—electricity made possible by spinning turbines. Turbines powered by wind and solar, but mostly by oil and natural gas. So, go pour yourself another cup of joe, and raise your glass to the men and women who provide the energy that keeps the servers humming 24/7.”

This is undeniably factual. And of course, this website runs on such a server, and I have a hybrid car that still uses gasoline, and I use plastic products, which I try to recycle.

The other episode I had access to, “How A Mousetrap Can Cure Your Hangover,” does not have that explicit a message at its conclusion. (It ends with an outtake of Mike laughing.) But its credits—like the other episodes—include this:

Special Thanks

Energy Citizens

Thanks to Our Sponsors

American Petroleum Institute

Distribution Contractors Association

The Distribution Contractors Association’s mission statement says “working together to deliver superior value to the natural gas and the underground utility industry.”

Energy Citizens, which is fighting for oil pipelines and against efforts to end our dependence on gasoline, says it is “paid for by the American Petroleum Institute,” and the API says it “represents all segments of America’s oil and natural gas industry.”

The American Petroleum Industry is currently being sued by the state of Minnesota, which says API is among the “parties who have profited from avoiding the consequences and costs of dealing with global warming and its physical, environmental, social, and economic consequences,” and wants it to pay for “those impacts, rather than Minnesota taxpayers, residents, or broader segments of the public.” API is also being sued by Hoboken, New Jersey, which said Big Oil has been “actively lying about the detrimental effects of their products when in fact their own research indicated otherwise, all in order to generate multibillion dollar profits by producing, marketing, and selling vast quantities of fossil fuels.”

The Climate Investigations Center reported that “API was one of the first trade associations to orchestrate behind-the-scenes climate change denial campaigns. As early as the 1950’s and 1960’s, API worked to downplay the threat of smog to human health in Los Angeles by hiring their own scientists that would disparage leading smog control scientists, while promoting the idea that pollution controls would be too costly.”

:{

}:

Now, they’re sponsoring a Discovery+ reality show—a show you have to pay Discovery to watch. And even if you pay $7/month to remove ads, the oil industry’s message is part of some of the actual episodes.

Why does this matter?

A screenshot from an episode of Six Degrees with Mike Rowe, which shows the oil industry's sponsorship.]

Earlier last year, Mike Rowe was one of the speakers at an API event, where he and others “discussed the state of the energy workforce and the need for sensible policymaking on trade and infrastructure.” API’s press release quotes him: “Energy is always in the room…Every single American is relying on it.”

But every single American is also being affected by a “coordinated cover-up of climate risks [that] stretches back decades and rivals that of big tobacco companies.”

And we’re being affected by climate change right now. NASA’s “The Effects of Climate Change” outlines “impacts that are currently visible throughout the U.S. and will continue to affect these regions,” including “decreased water availability,” “risks to infrastructure,” “increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases [that] are causing widespread die-off,” “reduced agricultural yields” and “health impacts in cities due to heat.”

Emily Atkin, whose reporting on the climate crisis has taught me so much, wrote this:

Every year, the oil and gas industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising to convince the public they’re good faith partners in the fight against climate change.

… Oil companies and trade groups run such ads claiming they’re “part of the solution” while investing trillions of dollars into extracting more fossil fuels that, if burned, will undoubtedly send the livable world into chaos. They run ads claiming they’re “on it” while spending millions funding the spread of climate denial and disinformation.

I have not watched all episodes—three were provided to critics—but I have not seen evidence that Six Degrees with Mike Rowe is directly denying climate change or spreading overt disinformation.

But it certainly is taking the oil industry’s money—and delivering a pro-oil message that focuses on “the men and women who provide the energy that keeps the servers humming 24/7.”

That sounds reasonable until I imagine Mister Rogers saying Mister Rogers Neighborhood was sponsored by the tobacco industry, and the hard-working men and women who produce the nation’s cigarettes.

Mike Rowe’s response

On its web site, Discovery—now a massive, worldwide company, not just a single cable network—outlines its commitments to “being purposeful and doing the right thing.” That includes its commitments to the planet: “we seek to protect the planet and ensure there will always be stories to tell. We acknowledge that climate change is a real threat to our world and business and Discovery is committed to curbing our own impact on the environment.”

I asked Discovery how accepting money from an industry responsible for climate change and for lying about it fit with Discovery’s corporate mission and stated goals, and if Discovery be “committed to curbing our own impact” while allowing the oil industry to buy time inside one of its high-profile new shows.

Discovery did not respond to those questions.

I also asked where the sponsorship came from, how much they’re paying, who’s receiving that funding, and if the oil industry had any editorial control.

I received a statement attributed to Mike Rowe, which said this:

“Six Degrees is a show about the surprising ways people and events are connected through history. DCA and API were both interested in the concept and offered to sponsor the program before it was even shopped. They had no creative input, and no editorial oversight. But their enthusiasm for the project allowed us to start production long before the program had a home. It wouldn’t have happened without them, and I’m grateful for their support.”

Mike’s appreciation for their support for funding his show is understandable, but it’s regrettable that he’s appreciating and promoting an industry and organizations that are causing so much damage to every one of us.

some lnk

Distribution Contractors Association’s mission statement says “working together to deliver superior value to the natural gas and the underground utility industry.”

Energy Citizens, which is fighting for oil pipelines and against efforts to end our dependence on gasoline, says it is “paid for by the American Petroleum Institute,” and the API says it “represents all segments of America’s oil and natural gas industry.”

The American Petroleum Industry is currently being sued by the state of Minnesota, which says API is among the “parties who have profited from avoiding the consequences and costs of dealing with global warming and its physical, environmental, social, and economic consequences,” and wants it to pay for “those impacts, rather than Minnesota taxpayers, residents, or broader segments of the public.” API is also being sued by Hoboken, New Jersey, which said Big Oil has been “actively lying about the detrimental effects of their products when in fact their own research indicated otherwise, all in order to generate multibillion dollar profits by producing, marketing, and selling vast quantities of fossil fuels.”

The Climate Investigations Center reported that “API was one of the first trade associations to orchestrate behind-the-scenes climate change denial campaigns. As early as the 1950’s and 1960’s, API worked todownplay the threat of smog to human health in Los Angeles by hiring their own scientists that would disparage leading smog control scientists, while promoting the idea that pollution controls would be too costly.”

ref  conf

January 8, 2020

The U.S. is the global leader in energy production, carbon emissions reductions and environmental performance. In 2020, the State of American Energy is one of leadership in natural gas and oil development and ongoing progress toward global climate solutions.

For decades, U.S. energy policy has focused on reducing our dependence on foreign natural gas and oil – the outlook was often defined by scarcity, rather than abundance. Each of our last seven presidents understood that clean, affordable and reliable American energy is essential to both economic growth and national security. And today, our nation has achieved this hard-fought, bipartisan goal.

This was the overarching message of the State of American Energy event in Washington, D.C., where API unveiled its latest advocacy campaign – Energy for Progress – focused on establishing a shared vision for a brighter energy future.

In the keynote address, API President and CEO Mike Sommers emphasized that the benefits of American energy progress are felt be everyone – in Colorado and New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and with our trading partners across the globe:

 “U.S. energy leadership offers stability in chaotic times and insulates America from hostile and unreliable suppliers of energy. The global benefits of American natural gas and oil on the international stage are compelling. But if you want to know the value of stenergy leadership in 2020, you also must zoom in to see its benefits here at home. They’re on display from the smallest American communities to our biggest cities. American energy is powering the lives of people across our nation.

[vid]

aPI’s annual report – “This is Energy Progress” – tells the story of seven communities that have felt the positive impacts of the U.S. shale revolution. With decreased household energy costs, increased investment in infrastructure projects and expanded opportunities for skilled tradespeople, domestic energy abundance is an economic asset for millions of Americans. Sommers remarked:

“Natural gas and oil help explain why, in parts of America that haven’t seen job growth for decades, you’ll now find a vibrant manufacturing base…and more tax revenue for schools, police, public works, conservation, and everything else that powers modern life.”

The event also included a panel discussion featuring Terry O’Sullivan, General President of the Laborers’ International Union of North America; Karen Kerrigan, President and CEO of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council; Leslie Beyer, President of the Petroleum Equipment and Services Association; and Mike Rowe, former host of Discovery Channel’s Dirty Jobs. Among other topics, the experts discussed the state of the energy workforce and the need for sensible policymaking on trade and infrastructure. Mike Rowe stated, plainly:

“Energy is always in the room...Every single American is relying on it.”

Still, there are those intent on halting U.S. energy development – offering unrealistic policy proposals that promise to ban state-of-the-art techniques, like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, or permanently restrict natural gas and oil production on federal lands. These agenda-driven positions all but assure a retreat from our decades-long advance toward energy security and economic prosperity. Sommers explained:

“At the extreme, we hear promises on the 2020 campaign trail to ban fracking, nationwide and forever. Here’s a glimpse at that vision: Millions of jobs lost, a spike in household energy costs, a manufacturing downturn and less energy security. In the short run, a fracking ban in America would quickly invite a global recession. You don’t abolish the most dynamic asset of the world’s leading energy supplier without severe consequences.”

But the lawmakers and presidential contenders presenting these positions on fracking, energy infrastructure, and federal and offshore leases offer false choices when comprehensive and common-sense solutions are within reach. Simply put, the U.S. doesn’t have choose between energy abundance and environmental progress. By advocating for smart policies that advance industry-led innovations, we can continue to expand the economy, supply affordable natural gas and oil to consumers and drive down emissions of carbon dioxide. Sommers noted:

“Bold and achievable action on climate change at the global level is essential, and America’s natural gas and oil industry is committed to innovation and leadership to make these ambitions more than just hopes and dreams. We support legislation to encourage wider use of carbon-capture, utilization, and storage technology—a breakthrough based on American ingenuity.”

In 2020, this industry – and our nation – finds itself at a defining moment. As the global demand for energy rises and actions to combat climate change intensify, America’s natural gas and oil industry is poised to tackle this dual challenge and create a better, brighter future for all. This is the State of American Energy. This is energy for progress.

About The Author

Sam Winstel is a writer for the American Petroleum Institute. He comes to API from Edelman, where he supported communications marketing strategies for clients across the firm’s energy and federal government practices. Originally from Dallas, Texas, Sam graduated from Davidson College in North Carolina, and hecurrently resides in Washington, D.C

https://www.desmog.com/mike-sommers/

Credentials

Background

Mike Sommers has been the president and :{CEO:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:of the American Petroleum Institute (:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:) sinceMay 2018, taking over from Jack Gerard. Before API, Sommers was president and CEO of the American Investment Council (AIC), previously known as the Private Equity Growth Capital Council (PEGCC), which he led since February 2016. [5], [15]

Sommers has been a top aide to former House Speaker John Boehner. He previously worked as Boehner’s deputy chief of staff, policy director, legislative director, and press secretary. In 2005, Sommers left the Hillto work as a special assistant to President George W. Bush at the National Economic Council where he advised Bush on agriculture and trade policy. He returned to work for Boehner at Capitol Hill in early 2006. [2], [3]

According to his profile at AIC, “Sommers has been at the center of every major policy dispute in the last decade and successfully negotiated bipartisan compromises on landmark legislation, including the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) in 2008, the resolution of the fiscal cliff in 2013, the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015 and trade promotion authority in 2015.” [2]

*Bloomberg* reported Sommers played a large role in fighting for the carried interest tax rule that worked to benefit large hedge fund managers. While working as chief strategist for Boehner, Sommers was also involved in congressional fights with the Obama administration over spending. [4]

Sommers is a member of the :{U.S.:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Chamber of Commerce ”Association Committee of 100 (:{C100:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:),” a group of CEOs that “enhance Chamber lobbying and coalition work, recommend programming, and strengthen outreach to the business and association communities.” [6]

His wife, Jill Sommers, is a former Commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). [2]

Stance on Climate Change

The American Petroleum Institute has historically spread doubtabout the science surrounding climate change, and has promoted natural gas useas the best way to reduce CO2 emissions. [7],[8]

January 2020

API, while Sommers was heading the group, started changing its terminology. E&E News reported: [16]

“’Oil and gas,’ the long-standing terminology used by industry, finance, government and others, is out. Instead, the American Petroleum Institute has largely switched to ‘natural gas and oil,’ putting the low-carbon fuel front and center.” [16]

“The global benefits of American natural gas and oil on the international stage are compelling,” Mike Sommers said in a speech at API‘s State of American Energy event. [16]

June 27, 2019

In an API article titled “Addressing the Risks of Climate Change,” Sommers claimed more natural gas production was the key to reducing CO2 emissions: [17]

“No discussion about the need to reduce carbon emissions is complete without acknowledging the key role that natural gas has played and will continue to play going forward. America is leading the world in reducing carbon emissions largely because of clean natural gas. In fact, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that natural gas is responsible for more CO2 emissions reductions in electricity generation than renewables.”

Key Quotes

January 30, 2018

On the Trump Presidency, Sommers toldPolitico:[9]

“This administration has been defined so far by historic legislative, regulatory and foreign policy accomplishmentsinterrupted by unfortunate distractions.”

September 30, 2016

“One of the great parts of serving for speaker Boehner was that I really was at the intersection of public policy and politics. […] One of the things that attracted me to the American Investment Council and the private equity industry is that I believe that this job, and this association, really stands at a different intersection but a very similar intersection.It stands at the intersection of public policy and the free enterprise system,” Sommers said in an interview with Pensions & Investments. [10]

May 17, 2016

“It would be discriminatory and ill-advised to recharacterizecarried interest from a long-held capital asset as anything other than a long-term capital gain for private-equity fund managers. Lawmakers are smart to avoid doing so,” Somers wrote in an Op-Ed at *The Washington Post*.[11]

March 9, 2016

Regarding his work in the private equity industry, Sommers told *The Hill*:[12]

“It’s no secret that most of the support that the PEGCC and the private equity industry gets is on the Republican side, but we have a lot of Democrats in this industry,” said Sommers. “We are an organization that’s focused on policy, not on politics.”

Undated

While working with House Speaker John Boehner, Sommers was among several minority staffers who were in charge ofmotions to recommit. Politico reported their goal was to “highlight divisions among the Democrats or lure some vulnerable lawmakers into casting a bad vote.” [3]

“It’s like cooking a frog,” Sommers said. “First, you put him in the water, and then you turn the heat up.”

Key Deeds

August 23, 2019

Mike Sommers appeared on the radio program *Politics Inside Out*with Chris Frates. On the show he responded to a question of “Why should the oil and gas industry be trusted with what it says it’s doing to help the environment?”[18]

May 3, 2018

Sommers became the president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, a group representing fossil fuel interests that has worked to promote “uncertainty” around climate change in the past. Sources first reported the American Petroleum Institute (:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:) planned to name Sommers as its next president and CEO in April 2018, *Axios* reported.[5], [15]

January 2017

Sommers’ American Investment Council became a client of the all-Republican lobbying firm CGCN, *Politico* reported. CGCN Group, LLC (Formerly Clark Geduldig Cranford & Nielsen, LLC) would lobby on tax treatment of partnerships and tax reform. CCGN also added power companyNextra Energy to its list of clients at the time. [14]

May 17, 2016

Sommers defended the carried interest loophole, a rule that would benefit rich Hedge Fund Managers,in a *Washington Post*Op-Ed. Sommers’ American Investment Council has been at the forefront of fighting for the rule, which some have said is “crafted for the…super wealthy.” [11], [13]

Affiliations

Social Media

Publications

Resources

  1. “Mike Sommers,” LinkedIn. Accessed May 1, 2018.
  2. “Mike Sommers,” American Investment Council. Archived May 1, 2018.
  3. “Dapper duo commits to recommit strategy – and to peace within the Republican ranks,” Politico.Archived May 1, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/ZrLfC
  4. Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Ari Natter. “Former Boehner Aide Eyed for Oil Trade Group :{CEO:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:,” Bloomberg, April 30, 2018. Archived May 1, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/ffVGK
  5. “Oil lobby expected to tap Beltway veteran for top role,” Axios, April 30, 2018. Archived May 1, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/fvtmL
  6. “:{U.S.:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Chamber’s Association Committee of 100 Welcomes Six New Members,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, November 15, 2016. Archived May 1, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/eAWBQ
  7. :{“:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:Denial and Deception: A Chronicle of ExxonMobil’s Efforts to Corrupt the Debate on Global Warming” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:) Greenpeace, May, 2007. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
  8. “Climate and Energy,” API, May 2017. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
  9. “:{BIRTHDAY:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{OF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{THE:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{DAY:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:: Mike Sommers, president and :{CEO:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: of the American Investment Council and former Boehner :{COS:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:,” Politico, January 30, 2018. Archived May 1, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/sKElI
  10. “Face to Face with the American Investment Council’s Mike Sommers,” Pensions and Investments.Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
  11. “Carried interest is a launchpad for entrepreneurial risk-taking,” The Washington Post, May 17, 2016. Archived May 1, 2018. Archive.is URL:https://archive.li/kT54l
  12. “Ex-Boehnerland chief lands in private equity,” The Hill, March 9, 2016. Archived May 1, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/If5Iu
  13. Erica Payne. “Boehner Right-Hand Man Mike Sommers Carries (Industry) Interest on Carried Interest,” Patriotic Millionaires, February 3, 2016. Archived May 1, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/ykdpJ
  14. Isaac Arnsdorf. “Jim Murphy to BakerHostetler,” Politico,January 6, 2017.Archived May 1, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/0lkG7
  15. “:{MIKE:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{SOMMERS:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{NAMED:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{NEW:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{PRESIDENT:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{AND:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{CEO:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:,” API. May 2, 2018. Archived January 13, 2020. Archive.fo URL: https://archive.ph/:{TUN:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:g4
  16. Timothy Cama. “An end to ‘oil and gas’? Industry rebrands in climate push,” E&E News, January 8, 2020. Archived January 13, 2020. Archive.ph URL: https://archive.ph/wip/paR8M
  17. “Addressing the Risks of Climate Change,” API, June 27, 2019. Archived January 13, 2020. Archive.ph URL: https://archive.ph/wip/Zsfj8
  18. “Why should the oil and gas industry be trusted with what it says its doing to help the environment?”Politics Inside Outon SiriusXM, August 23, 2019. Archived mp3 on file at DeSmog.

https://www.uschamber.com/mike-sommers

off bs

Mike Sommers

President and CEO, American Investment Council

Mike Sommers is the president and CEO of the American Investment Council (AIC). Before joining the AIC, Sommers spent two decades in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the White House. From Congress to the West Wing, Sommers crafted and executed a wide range of political and legislative strategies centered on the nation's most pressing issues.

Most recently, Sommers was chief of staff to Speaker of the House John A. Boehner (R-OH).In this capacity, he was the top staffer in the House and advised the Speaker and House leadership on all matters before Congress. Sommers was at the center of every major policy dispute in the last decade and successfully negotiated bipartisan compromises on landmark legislation, including the Trouble Asset Relief Program in 2008, the resolution of the fiscal cliff in 2013, the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015, and trade promotion authority in 2015.

Prior to being named chief of staff to the Speaker, Sommers served Boehner in other capacities, including: deputy chief of staff, policy director, legislative director, and press secretary. He was also special assistant to President George W. Bush at the National Economic Council at the White House in 2005. There, he advised the president on agriculture, trade, and food policy.

Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, named Sommers one of the top staffers on Capitol Hill for each of the past 10 years and in 2015 named him one of the top 50 staffers in the last 50 years. Sommers has been profiled in Politico, The Hill, and National Journal. In 2005, his peers selected him to head the Republican Chiefs of Staff Association.

Sommers is native of Naperville, Illinois, and a graduate of the honors program at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. He was awarded the President's Distinguished Service Medal–the highest honor given to a Miami undergraduate. He and his wife, Jill Sommers, a former commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, have three children and live in Alexandria, Virginia

Jill E. Sommers was sworn in as a commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on August 8, 2007 to a term that expired April 13, 2009. She was nominated on July 20, 2009 by President Barack Obama to serve a five-year second term.,[1] and confirmed by the United States Senate on October 8, 2009.[2]

Global Markets Advisory Committee[

On February 4, 2008 the commission appointed Sommers to serve as chairman and designated federal official of the Global Markets Advisory Committee, which meets periodically to discuss issues of concern to exchanges, firms, market users and the commission regarding the regulatory challenges of a global marketplace.[3]

Financial Literacy and Education Commission[

She also serves as the commission designee to the Financial Literacy and Education Commission, which is chaired by the secretary of the treasury and was established to improve the financial literacy and education of U.S. citizens.

Career[

Commissioner Sommers has worked in the commodity futures and options industry in a variety of capacities throughout her career. In 2005 she was the policy director and head of government affairs for the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, where she worked on a number of over-the-counter derivatives issues.

Prior to that, Sommers worked in the Government Affairs Office of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), where she was instrumental in overseeing regulatory and legislative affairs for the exchange. During her tenure with the CME, she had the opportunity to work closely with congressional staff drafting the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

Sommers started her career in Washington in 1991 as an intern forSenator Robert J. Dole (R-KS), working in various capacities until 1995. She later worked as a legislative aide for two consulting firms specializing in agricultural issues, Clark & Muldoon, P.C. and Taggart and Associates.

Personal information:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

A native of Fort Scott, Kansas, Sommers holds a bachelor of arts degree from the University of Kansas. Her husband, Mike Sommers, is president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute and former chief of staff to Speaker of the United States House of Representatives John Boehner.

off bs?

American Investment Council (AIC), formerly the Private Equity Growth Capital Council (PEGCC), is a lobbying, advocacy, and research organization based in Washington, D.C., that was launched by a consortium of private equity firms in February 2007. It focuses on defending and promoting the private equity and growth capital investment industry to lawmakers and the public at large. Its members include some of the world's largest private equity firms.

Contents

History:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

Founding and early history:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

The concept for a trade association for the private equity industry originated in 2006, as the private equity market reached the peak of its mid-2000s buyout boom and it became the subject of increased criticism and government scrutiny.[2][3][4] That year, private equity firms were involved in around 28% of acquisitions by dollar value, compared to 3% in 2001.[3] In late 2006, the Private Equity Council (PEC) was formed as the industry's principal lobbying organization.[5][6][7] The trade association was officially launched in Washington, D.C., in February 2007.[8]

The original Private Equity Council logo in use from the formation of the organization through September 2010

The AIC provides research on issues including the impact of private equity on job creation andpension funds' returns[9][6] in order to educate business leaders, policymakers, the media, and labor organizations about the private equity industry.[10] In addition to its research and communications endeavors, the Council's mission also includes advocacy on behalf of private equity firms and the growth capital investment industry.[11][12]

Expansion and renaming:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

In 2010, the PEC expanded its membership to include a broader selection of private equity industry stakeholders.[13][14] In September 2010, eighteen new members were added, including middle-market private equity firms and growth capital investment firms.[14] Following this expansion, the PEC changed its name to the Private Equity Growth Capital Council (PEGCC) to reflect a broader membership.[15] According to the Council, in addition to the name change it created a committee called the "Growth Capital Committee" to focus specifically on issues related to middle and small market firms.[16] In 2016, the PEGCC changed its name to the American Investment Council to "reflect the increased diversity of PE firms and growing focus of the industry."[17]

Member firms:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

The AIC's members include some of the largest private equity firms globally, along with an Associate Member class of advisory and law firms that have a private equity practice.[13] A full list of members can be found on the AIC's website.[18]

Activities:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

Since its launch in 2007, the AIC has spent over $11 million on lobbying.[19] It also commissions and publicizes research favorable to the private equity industry.

In addition to its research and lobbying activities, the trade association has developed best practice guidelines. In 2009, it developed a set of "guidelines for responsible investment", which were adopted by its members, covering such issues as health, safety, labor, governance,[20] transparency for stakeholders and respect for human rights.[21] The guidelines were produced in accordance with the United Nations' Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), from discussions between AIC members and a group of institutional investors.[21] The guidelines focus on transparency of private equity transactions and ensuring compliance with all applicable laws, both in the United States and overseas, and encourage adding value to members' portfolio companies.[21][20] The AIC received positive feedback on its guidelines from PRI executive director James Gifford, and the chief investment officers of California Public Employees Retirement Systems (CalPERS)[21] and California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS), but the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) remained critical of the industry, arguing that outside regulation was needed rather than internal guidelines.[20]

In 2016, the AIC, in partnership with the National Association of Investment Companies, launched The Private Equity Women’s Initiative. The initiative promotes the recruitment and retention of women in private equity industry. Through this initiative, AIC membership promotes Guidelines and Best Practices for better gender parity in private equity.[22]

Studies and reports:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

The AIC releases quarterly and annual reports that highlight fundraising and investment trends, measure PE performance, and analyze top states and districts for investments. These reports share the impact that private equity has across the country.

Top States and Districts Report:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

In 2011, the AIC released its first Top States and Districts report, a ranking of the top 20 states and Congressional districts receiving the most private equity investment and that have the most private equity-backed companies. The report features an interactive map on the AIC's website that allows visitors to find out information about private equity investment in every state, including data about pension funds.[23] Thomson Reuters and propriety data collected by the AIC provide data for the report.[24]

Other reports:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

In early 2007 the private equity industry was criticized by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which argued that the industry put employees at risk of job loss and had a negative impact on job creation.[25][26] In response to this criticism, the AIC commissioned a number of studies and reports. In September 2007, an AIC report detailed three case studies of private equity owned companies that became more competitive and increased employment following their buyout.[27] The following January, a study for the Council by Robert J. Shapiro and economist Nam Pham found that 76% of companies owned by eight private equity firms reported an increase in jobs.[28] The study observed "significantly greater job gains" in private equity transactions compared with the overall market.[29] In 2010 an AIC report found that portfolio companies outperform publicly owned companies by 7% over three years and 11% over five years, countering claims that private equity has a negative impact operational improvement.[30]

Other reports commissioned by the Council include a plan to improve the U.S. economy, produced by economists Martin Neil Baily and Matthew Slaughter,[31] and a report estimating the total employment by private equity owned companies to be 11 million people. Pensions & Investments magazine stated that this was the first time that employment by the industry had been quantified.[32]

Legislation and regulation:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

The AIC has advocated before Congress in support of the private equity industry on numerous occasions. In 2009, the then-president of the PEC, Douglas Lowenstein, testified before the House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) in support of legislation requiring private equity and hedge funds to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).[33] He stated that the PEC supported registration under the proposed Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act because its members perceived the law as an important component of protection for investors against systemic risk.[34] While supporting registration, Lowenstein raised concerns regarding cost for smaller firms.[35]

The AIC has testified before Congress on the industry's role in the economy. In 2007, Lowenstein testified before the HFSC on the impact of private equity on employment and companies.[36] In 2009, its chairman Mark Tresnowski testified before the Senate Banking Subcommittee on the potential role of private equity in the recovery of the U.S. economy.[35]

The AIC's initial lobbying efforts were focused on opposing proposed legislation to increase taxation of private equity managers' fees.[37][38][39] The AIC supported keeping the carried interest tax on managers' fees at the 15 percent capital gains rate,[40] rather than increasing it to the earned income rate.[39] The proposed legislation was rejected but similar proposals were raised in 2009 and 2011, and the AIC continued to oppose them.[41]

Lobbying disclosures:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

As required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, the Council is a registered lobbying organization and files quarterly reports concerning these activities, including the amount of money spent specifically on lobbying.[19]

Annual reported lobbying expenditures:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

References

...

omfg

msnbc? calls it rommney exxn bill, not the bipart infra

https://www.alternet.org/2021/07/senior-exxonmobil-lobbyist/

raw story

Channel 4 in the U.K. published a startling expose on ExxonMobil's lobbyists who revealed the top most important U.S. Senators who are the ones behind any legislation that might hurt the oil industry.

While many oil companies are diversifying with natural gas, it appears ExxonMobil is going all-in battling to keep "big oil" alive and well.

"Keith McCoy is a senior ExxonMobil lobbyist on Capitol Hill and has represented the company in its liaison with the U.S. Congress for the last eight years," explained the report.

"Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes. Did we hide our science? Absolutely not," said McCoy on camera. "Did we join some of these shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that's true. But there's nothing, there's nothing illegal about that. We were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders."

McCoy compared his work with elected officials to fishing with ExxonMobil who supplies the "bait" before it "reels in" the official on issues like a carbon tax, electric cars, taxation and infrastructure.

"When you have an opportunity to talk to a member of Congress, I liken it to fishing, right? You know you have bait, you throw that bait out. And they say: 'Oh, you want to talk about infrastructure, yeah,'" McCoy continued. "And then you start to reel them in and you start to have these conversations about federal leasing programs, you start to have these conversations about a carbon tax. You know, it's all these opportunities that you use and to use the fishing analogy again just to kind of reel them in."

"I make sure I get them the right information that they need so they look good. And then they help me out. They're a captive audience. They know they need you. And I need them," McCoy also said.

He went on to explain that lobbyists aim to have close relationships with officials.

"You want to be able to go to the chief… and say we need congressman so and so to be able to either introduce this bill, we need him to make a floor statement, we need him to send a letter. You name it, we've asked for everything," he said.

But it was the shocking revelation that he has 11 U.S. Senators on the hook.

"Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Senator Jon Tester, Senator Maggie Hassan, Senator John Barrasso, Senator John Cornyn, Senator Steve Daines, Senator Chris Coons, Senator Mark Kelly and Senator Marco Rubio," were all cited.

He went on to explain that the last thing they want is to appear in a public hearing before Congress where the American people can see.

"We don't want it to be us, to have these conversations, especially in a hearing. It's getting our associations to step in and have those conversations and answer those tough questions and be for, the lack of a better term, the whipping boy for some of these members of congress," McCoy confessed.

"There was something we were working on earlier this week where we, where our CEO was invited to a hearing from a member of congress who we know is just going to rip him to shreds when he goes there. So, we look at it and we say: well, why us?" he asked.

See the video below and read the full story at Channel 4:

// ABOVE

exxon guy busted, CONFIRM BUFFER

https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-exxonmobils-lobbying-war-on-climate-change-legislation

explosive footage was obtained byUnearthed, Greenpeace UK’s investigative platform,who posed as head-hunters to obtain the information from one of ExxonMobil’s most senior Washington lobbyists.

The recordings appear to reveal the secretive behind-the-scenes activities of a lobbyist for a company that claims in public to support action on climate change, while fighting against legislative attempts to tackle it.

ExxonMobil say they “have supported climate science for decades” and accuse Greenpeace of “waging a multi-decade campaign” against their company and industry.

They insist their “lobbying fully comply with all laws and are publicly disclosed on a quarterly basis.”

‘Shadow groups’

Keith McCoy is a senior ExxonMobil lobbyist on Capitol Hilland has represented the company in its liaison with the US Congress for the last eight years.

Greenpeace UK’s Unearthed platform posed as head-hunters looking to hire a Washington D.C. lobbyist for a major client. They approached Mr McCoy, who agreed to speak over Zoom.

During the covert recordings, which have been passed to Channel 4 News, Mr McCoy claims:

During the virtual meeting held on 7 May, the investigators asked Mr McCoy questions about ExxonMobil’s current and historical lobbying on environmental issues.

In the excerpts from the footage to be broadcast on Channel 4 News tonight, Mr McCoy claims that ExxonMobil has aggressively fought science to deny climate change in order to maximise profit and shareholder return. He alleges that ExxonMobil joined “shadow groups” to pursue climate change denial.

Mr McCoy said: “Did we aggressively fight against some of the science?  Yes. Did we hide our science?  Absolutely not.  Did we join some of these shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that’s true. But there’s nothing, there’s nothing illegal about that.

“We were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders.”

ExxonMobil told Channel 4 News that they “have supported climate science for decades.”

‘It’s like fishing’

Mr McCoy likens the approach to lobbying congressmen to the way fishermen target fish, claiming that ExxonMobil puts out “bait” and then “reels in” congressmen on issues like carbon tax, electric vehicles, chemicals, taxation and infrastructure.

Mr McCoy said: “When you have an opportunity to talk to a member of Congress, I liken it to fishing, right? You know you have bait, you throw that bait out. And they say: ‘Oh, you want to talk about infrastructure, yeah.’

“And then you start to reel them in and you start to have these conversations about federal leasing programmes, you start to have these conversations about a carbon tax. You know, it’s all these opportunities that you use and to use the fishing analogy again just to kind of reel them in.”

He added: “I make sure I get them the right information that they need so they look good. And then they help me out. They’re a captive audience. They know they need you. And I need them.”

He says lobbyists aim to have a direct relationship with a member of congress, adding: “You want to be able to go to the chief… and say we need congressman so and so to be able to either introduce this bill, we need him to make a floor statement, we need him to send a letter. You name it, we’ve asked for everything.”

‘The Kingmaker’

Mr McCoy names 11 senators who he says are “crucial” to ExxonMobil: Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Senator Joe Manchin, Senator KyrstenSinema,Senator Jon Tester, Senator Maggie Hassan, Senator John Barrasso, Senator John Cornyn, Senator Steve Daines, dem Senator Chris Coons, Senator Mark Kelly and Senator Marco Rubio

We gave all these senators a chance to respond. All the senators declined to comment. There is no suggestion of illegality.

Channel 4 News has established, through Federal Election Commission (FEC) data, that all except two of these senators (Senators Maggie Hassan and Mark Kelly) have received financial contributions from ExxonMobil.

ExxonMobil insists “our lobbying efforts fully comply with all laws and are publicly disclosed on a quarterly basis”.

Mr McCoy described Senator Joe Manchin as “the Kingmaker” in the Senate and he says he spoke to his office on a weekly basis.

The FEC data shows Senator Manchin has received at least $12,500 from the ExxonMobil Political Action Committee in declared disbursements since the beginning of the 2011-12 election cycle.

Mr McCoy described how a “big piece of [his] job is education and advocacy” and says that in his work on behalf of ExxonMobil he argues that US government programmes to roll outelectric vehicles are unrealistic. [INVENTED PRIUS AND BATT THEN BAILLED]

He said: “The research and development conversation has taken us a long way because of climate change. And there is a struggle to find solutions and to get the reductions that they’re looking for. And you’re not going to be able to just switch to battery operated vehicles or wind for your electricity. And just having that conversation around why that’s not possible in the next 10 years is critically important to the work that we do.”

‘Whipping boy’

Mr McCoy described a lobbying strategy in which he claims ExxonMobil uses third parties to mask its interests from public view and accountability.

He said: “We don’t want it to be us, to have these conversations, especially in a hearing. It’s getting our associations to step in and have those conversations and answer those tough questions and be for, the lack of a better term, the whipping boy for some of these members of congress.”

He added: “There was something we were working on earlier this week where we, where our CEO was invited to a hearing from a member of congress who we know is just going to rip him to shreds when he goes there. So, we look at it and we say: well, why us?”

Mr McCoy claims that ExxonMobil lobbied Congress to dilute the climate provisions of President Biden’s Infrastructure Bill.

He said: “That’s a completely different conversation when you start to stick to roads and bridges.And instead of a $2 trillion bill, it’s an $800 billion dollar bill. If you lower that threshold, you stick to highways and bridges then a lot of the negative stuff starts to come out.”

“Why would you put in something on emissions reductions on climate change to oil refineries in a highway bill? So, people say yeah that doesn’t make any sense, so then you get to the germane of saying that shouldn’t be in this bill.”

ExxonMobil said: “Our discussion on the bill are not accurately portrayed. Our lobbying efforts are related to a tax burden that could disadvantage us businesses.”

Carbon tax

Mr McCoy appears to suggest that ExxonMobil’s public support for a carbon tax is underpinned by the conviction it will never happen, allowing the company to “support” it in order to appear green.

He said: “I will tell you there is not an appetite for a carbon tax. It is a non-starter. Nobody is going to propose a tax on all Americans. And the cynical side of me says yeah we kind of know that. But it gives us a talking point. We can say well what is ExxonMobil for? Well we’re for a carbon tax.

“Carbon tax is not gonna happen. I have always said, and I’ve worked on climate change issues for twenty years. There’s a lot of talk around it and the bottom line is it’s going to take political courage, political will in order to get something done. And that just doesn’t exist in politics. It just doesn’t.

Purporting to speak on behalf of ExxonMobil, Mr McCoy also expressed a corporate view that, contrary to science,natural gas is a clean energy source.

He said: “On a clean electricity standard, we think natural gas will play a key role in anything. And not just as a bridge fuel. We think it is a low emission energy source and should be part of a clean electricity standard.”

ExxonMobil statement

A spokesperson for ExxonMobil told Channel 4 News:  “Greenpeace has waged a multi-decade campaign against our company and industry, which has included false claims and unlawful actions at our facilities as well as those of other companies around the world.

“Our lobbying efforts are related to a tax burden that could disadvantage U.S. businesses, and we have made that position known publicly. ExxonMobil stands by our position thatincreased taxes on American businesses make the U.S. less competitive.

“We have been clear in supporting an efficient, economy-wide price on carbon as the best way to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.While there is not broad support for a tax, we are actively and publicly discussing other options, including lower-carbon fuels and other sector-based approaches that would place a uniform, predictable cost on carbon.

“We have supported climate science for decades.Greenpeace and others have distorted our position on climate science and our support for effective policy solutions.

”ExxonMobil transparently engages with a variety of trade associations, think tanks and coalitions in order to promote informed dialogue and sound public policy in areas pertinent to the Corporation’s interests.

“ExxonMobil exercises its right to engage in lobbying in the United States at both the Federal and State levels to advocate our positions on issues that affect our Corporation and the energy industry.

“We have a responsibility to our customers, employees, communities and shareholders to represent their interests in public policy discussions that impact our business.

“Our lobbying efforts fully comply with all laws and are publicly disclosed on a quarterly basis, including the issues we discuss.”

see exxon lobby BS

https://www.alternet.org/2021/03/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change/

American Petroleum Institute, a major fossil fuels lobby group that includes members of companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil, has been opposed to setting a national price on carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. But this week, NBC News is reporting, API reversed that policy — and the group's CEO is acknowledging climate change as a reality.

NBC News' Josh Lederman reports that this change "follows a fierce internal debate within the organization over whether to embrace a carbon price, which several of the group's members had already publicly backed."

Many strident proponents of fossil fuels, from former President Donald Trump to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to Fox News pundits like Sean Hannity, are climate change deniers. But API CEO Mike Sommers, in an interview with NBC News, acknowledged climate change as a reality.

Sommers, discussing API's change of policy on a national carbon emissions price, told NBC News, "It's a recognition of the situation that we're in today and the importance of dealing with this important issue. This is a top priority of the Biden Administration, and we also know that climate change is real and that we need to be part of the discussion on one of the marquee items of our time."

Lederman, however, notes that API "is not endorsing a specific approach to putting a price on carbon." But Sommers, during his interview with NBC News, called for "investments in clean technologies."

Lederman explains, "Although major business and industry groups long fiercely opposed making emitters pay for their emissions, that opposition has ebbed as (the) industry has seen major government action as inevitable and began coalescing around a market-based approach that avoids the federal government issuing mandates. In recent years, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and other groups have voiced support for a carbon price."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB