webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Natural Gas ANGA LNG

includes export. but also sep

see frack

methane

plastic ej

see LNG export

an 12 24

liquefied natural gas developers have expansion plans that could release 10 additional metric gigatons of climate pollution by 2030, and major banks and investors are enabling them to the tune of nearly $500 billion.

A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.

"Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger," Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. "Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs."

"While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back."

The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.

Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What's more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.

"Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies," the report authors explained.

Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.

The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:

  1. Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
  2. JP Morgan Chase (U.S.)
  3. Mizuho (Japan)
  4. Gazprombank (Russia)
  5. SMBC Group (Japan)

6. Bank of America (U.S.)

  1. Citigroup (U.S.)
  2. Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
  3. Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
  4. RBC (Canada)

While 26 of the banks on the report's list of top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.

All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to frontline communities. Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.

"Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition," said Rieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. "While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen."

The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the U.S. led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.

The top 10 LNG investors are:

  1. BlackRock
  2. Vanguard
  3. State Street
  4. Fidelity Investments
  5. Capital Group
  6. GPFG
  7. JP Morgan Chase
  8. Brookfield Asset Management
  9. Blackstone
  10. MSBI

Just three of these entities—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—contributed 24% of all investments.

Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb.

"Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed," the report authors wrote. "This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion."

To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.

"LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition," Duclos-Gonda said. "Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately."

===

https://www.vox.com/22912760/natural-gas-methane-rename

no lnx pix ads

locals in the town of Fredonia, New York, noticed in the early 19th century how gas would sometimes bubble up in a creek and catch fire when lit. This wasn’t much more than a curiosity until 1821, when a businessman captured and sold it for fuel to Fredonia shops. This “inflammable air,” as one newspaper called it, was cheap to transport relative to the other lighting fuels of the day — whale oil for candles and gas produced from coal. From the start, “nature’s gas,” as it was nicknamed, was celebrated as the healthy and virtually inexhaustible miracle fuel of the future.

A big part of the early appeal was how much cleaner gas seemed than coal. In the 19th century, people could see and smell the particulate matter, sulfur, and nitrogen leaving a trail of smoggy air in cities. By comparison, natural gas is almost entirely made up of methane, a colorless, odorless gas that produces far fewer of these pollutants when burned.

What no one knew back then was that methane is pollution, too — just a different kind. A large body of scientific research now shows that gas, when it’s produced and when it’s consumed, poses a danger to human health and to the climate.

In the 19th century, this ignorance was understandable, but today most people still don’t appreciate how insidious gas fuel is. When the climate communications group Climate Nexus conducted a poll of 4,600 registered US voters last fall, 77 percent had a favorable view of natural gas, far higher than when asked about their views on methane. Less than a third were able to link that natural gas is primarily methane. In the same poll, a majority incorrectly answered that they think methane pollution is declining or staying about the same. Other surveys show similar results.

The reason for the disconnect is embedded in the very name, “natural gas.” The word “natural” tends to bias Americans to view whatever it is affixed to as healthy, clean, and environmentally friendly. Natural foods, natural immunity, and natural births are among the many buzzwords of the moment.

“The idea that we ought to do what’s natural, we ought to use what’s natural, and we ought to consume what’s natural is one of the most powerful and commonplace shortcuts we have,” said Alan Levinovitz, a religion professor who wrote Natural: How Faith in Nature’s Goodness Leads to Harmful Facts, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science. “The term influences people’s attitudes toward natural gas. People are going to be more likely to see natural gas as better than it is; they’re more likely to see it as safer.”

The language has broader ripple effects on consumer choices and political decisions. Countries around the world have paradoxically encoded policies that incentivize continued gas production and consumption, even as 100 of them joined a voluntary Global Methane Pledge to slash methane by 30 percent in the next decade. The stakes have only grown as gas production rises to replace coal as the dominant fuel powering the electricity sector and millions of homes. Even as cities like New York and San Francisco are working to phase out gas appliances in their construction, gas production and exports have boomed to make the US the biggest exporter of liquified gas in the world.

Some climate advocates have already dropped the “natural” moniker in their legal filings, advertising, and communications, when talking about methane. They favor calling it “fossil gas” or “methane gas” — anything that’s more descriptive for a dangerous and explosive substance.

“I want my language to communicate the harms that are inherent in methane, in this climate-forcing substance. I want to be clear this is a threat to climate and public health,” said Matt Vespa, an attorney for the environmental legal nonprofit Earthjustice.

But the oil and gas industry isn’t ready to lose its biggest marketing advantage. If anything, industry language like clean, renewable, and responsible, has proliferated the past few years. The industry is actively at work to protect its careful branding as it tries to dodge climate scrutiny from regulators.

For over a century, the gas industry sold the public a myth about clean energy

Researchers at Yale’s Program on Climate Change Communication had a hunch about gas that they had a chance to test in a peer-reviewed paper published last fall. They knew from previous public opinion polls that Americans are more likely to view natural gas far more favorably than other fossil fuels and see it as a solution for climate change, rather than a driver. Anthony Leiserowitz, one of the researchers and co-author of the paper, wanted to isolate the effect the word “natural” had on these views.

They found a big effect, in line with the large body of social science research showing how food products labeled “natural” lead people to consider them more eco-friendly and healthy. The paper, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, examined how 3,000 respondents viewed different synonyms for gas. More than half of participants had a positive view of natural gas, but the advantage shrank immediately when you called it “natural methane gas” or “methane gas,” as well as for “fossil gas” and “fracked gas.” A second survey asked 500 participants to word-associate with “natural gas.” Only a tiny portion of the respondents, fewer than 6 percent, associated natural gas with methane, showing, according to the researchers, “that the relationship between the two is not a typical top-of-mind association.”

The study unsurprisingly found that the word “natural” biases Americans in favor of gas. But it also showed a key ignorance that has been exploited by the gas industry: The public doesn’t understand that the gas is essentially the same as methane, a pollutant. Millions of Americans cook with gas every day, but they don’t necessarily realize it is a fossil fuel that’s being piped into their stoves.

Though the industry may not have invented the phrase natural gas, it has leaned into its advantages in decades of advertising. In 1930, one Pennsylvanian gas company promoted its fuel as clean, healthful heat. And the advertising wasn’t always limited to just gas: One pamphlet from the 1940s, dug up by Levinovitz in the research for his book, likened coal to a cake baked by sunlight and heat.

A 1930s ad for the Greenville Natural Gas Co. in Pennsylvania advertises “healthful heat,” similar to industry advertising of “clean gas” today. Newspapers.com

A vintage pamphlet from a Philadelphia coal company advertises a “layer cake filled with ‘buried sunshine.’” Provided by Alan Levinovitz

In a few instances, companies have simply opted to drop the word “gas” entirely, going even further to distance themselves from the fact that its core product is methane. In 1997, the gas utility company, Northwest Natural Gas, simply dropped gas from its name to become Northwest Natural.

The gas industry advocacy groupNatural Allies for a Clean Energy Future also omits gas from its name. It has blanketed Politico newsletters in the last year with ads promoting gas as a solution for climate change, linking to a website that depicts two young children playing with a skateboard. You have to read the fine print to understand what’s being advertised is switching from one fossil fuel (coal) to another. (The group has connections with the Democratic Party, and recently added two former Democratic senators, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu and North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, to its leadership council. Heitkamp told The Hill she would be working “changing hearts and minds of people in the climate movement.”)

Environmentalists, meanwhile, have been complaining about how the gas industry misled consumers for decades. In 1994, the environmental group Greenpeace filed a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission, the independent body that has the power to fine and stop false advertising. Greenpeace urged the FTC to take action against the American Gas Association’s advertisements that had appeared in outlets like Newsweek, the New Republic, and Time. The complaint charged that the trade group’s claims the fuel was the solution for environmental problems and acid rain went too far to be reasonably supported by the science.

The FTC would have had the power to rein in this type of advertising as early as the 1990s. It didn’t use that power. The gas industry, free from FTC restrictions, has now embraced even more flagrant greenwashing 30 years later, with major consequences for climate change.

As gas’s reputation has soured, industry has gotten more creative

The concentration of methane in the atmosphere is rising alarmingly fast, with human activities mostly to blame. It has taken scientists some time to track down exactly where all that methane was coming from, but in the last few years, more research has shown methane leaks to be a systemic problem in the oil and gas industry. Wherever you find gas, you can potentially find some methane leaking out — at drilling sites, from pipelines, in cities, and even inside the home.

As the gas industry’s reputation has soured, world leaders are starting to take a harder look at these methane leaks and cities are moving toward phasing out gas in new building construction. Rather than slowing down, the natural gas marketing campaigns have become even more aggressive.

Democratic politicians and some environmental groups a decade ago embraced the thinking that gas could be a “bridge fuel” to phase out the more polluting coal industry. They didn’t just favor policies that promoted gas over coal, but at times prioritized gas over wind and solar. The lobby group American Petroleum Institute has pivoted from saying gas is a bridge fuel to arguing it is the fuel of the future. One API leader argued in 2019, “I would urge that it’s not a bridge but a foundation and will be a foundation for years to come.”

Today, Democratic leaders including President Joe Biden have largely backed away from that language, as methane is more than 80 times more capable of warming the atmosphere over a 20-year period than carbon dioxide. A politician can’t claim to be serious about fighting climate change if he ignores that methane concentrations have hit record highs.

As Democrats have gotten to be more skeptical of “bridge fuel” rhetoric, it’s become common for gas producers and suppliers to claim that their gas is cleaner than the gas produced somewhere else. That’s where newer phrases have come from, like “responsibly sourced gas” and “renewable natural gas.” Other times, the gas industry rallies under the banner of the American flag, calling its product “freedom gas.”

Whatever the label, the industry has adopted shifting language to promote gas as a climate solution, rather than a climate problem.

In the last year, API, ExxonMobil, and a number of other oil companies ran a blitz of Facebook ads that emphasized “clean natural gas,” first reported by the Guardian. SoCalGas, a utility that supplies gas to 22 million California customers, has run online ads claiming it is “renewable.”One company that sells biogas trapped from landfills and sewage treatments, which is identical to methane, claims it is a renewable energy company producing “zero-emissions” from the “cleanest fuel in the world.”

The oil and gas industry is adamant that gas is essential to transitioning off of other fossil fuels. “Natural gas is the leading reason the U.S. has reduced CO2 emissions to generational lows, and exporting that progress abroad by enabling coal-reliant nations to turn to cleaner fuels is critical to reducing emissions globally,” said API spokesperson Megan Bloomgren in a statement emailed to Vox.

[A gas flare from the Shell Chemical LP petroleum refinery illuminates the sky in Norco, Louisiana, on August 21, 2019. Located about 10 miles up the Mississippi River from New Orleans, the plant agreed to install $10 million in pollution monitoring and control equipment in 2018 to settle allegations that flares used to burn off emissions were operating in violation of the Clean Air Act. Drew Angerer/Getty Images]

The same type of rhetoric has shaped policy decisions that have much bigger stakes for climate investments. For example, in January, the commission overseeing the European Union became embroiled in a controversy when it said natural gas and nuclear power were sustainable investments, angering climate advocates, as first reported by Politico. The document declared that recognizing gas and nuclear energy can clean up climate pollution in the EU. This categorization would allow investors to count funding for future gas projects as sustainable and clean.

Climate campaigners are dealt a losing hand in these kinds of policy debates as long as gas is viewed as natural. It’s why they’re looking to challenge the way natural gas is used in company advertising.

In a bid to accelerate a transition away from gas, environmental groups have submitted a new complaint to the Federal Trade Commission to regulate misleading natural gas claims in advertising.Matt Vespa, an attorney forEarthjustice, hopes to see the FTC finally tackle the fossil fuel industry’s advertising claims. One important turning point could be how the FTC treats the issue in its upcoming Green Guide, updated every few years, on how food and cosmetic companies can use “natural” in their advertising.

While no single move can erase natural gas from our popular discourse overnight, Vespa hopes that a strong FTC stance against natural gas “will percolate into regulators’ minds that this is harmful.”

This language is “too dangerous to have around”

Climate advocates point to the polling, the greenwashing, and the policy implications as pressing reasons it’s important that everyone, especially the media, drop the natural gas label.

For Alan Levinovitz, the name natural gas is simply “too dangerous to have around.” Stopping calling it natural gas is the necessary first step for the world to move away from gas as a climate solution.

“My general rule of thumb for effective climate communication is don’t echo Big Oil sloganeering,” said Harvard scientist Geoffrey Supran, who researches oil disinformation. “So, at this point, it seems quite obvious that if they like using this term, the rest of us should avoid it.”

Following Supran’s logic, activists, political leaders, and some academics have shifted away from calling it natural gas.

But the name has had a 200-year head start. “It’s hard to penetrate the decades of ‘natural gas’ [messaging] just being ingrained in people’s brains,” said Vespa.

As for what should replace our default language, Anthony Leiserowitz’s 2021 Yale study had another finding that’s important to consider: Calling gas “fossil” or “fracked” could backfire if the objective is to reach as broad an audience as possible. The Yale polling found Republican voters viewed gas more favorably when it was called fossil gas or fracked gas, but more neutrally when it was called methane gas.

Despite these findings, some climate activists, politicians, and scientists have settled on calling it fossil gas anyway. Katharine Wilkinson stopped using natural gas in favor of simply gas or methane a few years ago, dropping all references to “natural” in the 2020 republished online version of the climate solutions book Drawdown and the podcast she co-hosts, A Matter of Degrees. House Natural Resources Committee Chair Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) prefers “fossil gas,” and the phrase can be found in several committee reports and legislation. And a handful of scientific papers over the years have used fossil gas.

If the movement to rename natural gas were to catch on, it would have bigger ripple effects on consumer choices and even political decisions. “It could shape your everyday behavior in terms of whether you decide to buy a natural gas stove or an induction stove,” Leiserowitz said. “These are marketing slogans and campaigns that have changed the way Americans think about what they do.”

WHY MERGE?

API & the American Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) Merger

On November 18, 2015, the American Petroleum Institute and the American Natural Gas Alliance (:{ANGA:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:) announced a merger to create a “single voice promoting the industry” while working under the name of the American Petroleum Institute. ANGA was founded in 2009 and is funded by natural gas producers, and has worked against federal limits on methane emissions. [52]

OpenSecrets reportsthat ANGA has spent more than $15 million on lobbying activities for the oil and gas industry since 2009: [53]...

521 desmog

More than 40 cities have enacted bans on new gas infrastructure, but in the Pacific Northwest one company is trying a new tactic to head off climate policy. In recent months, Oregon utility Northwest Natural has been promoting its use of “renewable natural gas” — methane captured from places like landfills and repurposed into energy for homes. Its push to promote its green image comes on the heels of a contentious effort by officials to require carbon emissions reductions from the company. **Read Nick Cunningham’s story**.

desmog 220

...

Origins of the Bridge Fuel Narrative

“The bridge fuel sales pitch was invented by the American Gas Association [AGA] in 1988 and has had a lasting impact on the gas narrative,” the Food and Water Watch report states. The report cites a 2017 paper by sociology scholar Dr. Anthony Ladd, who writes, “First crafted by the American Gas Association in 1988 to help ‘green’ the public image of the natural gas industry — just as the first scientific warnings about global warming were emerging — the clean energy bridge fuel discourse has been innovatively used to champion the use of natural gas, as well as nuclear power, based on their lower CO2 emissions than coal or oil.”

Ladd’s historical accounting of AGA originating the bridge fuel claim is confirmed by Washington Post archives from 1988: “Michael German, vice president of planning and analysis for the American Gas Association, refers to natural gas as a bridge fuel — the least harmful alternative while the world looks for other, longer-lasting solutions to the ‘greenhouse’ effect.”

==

green energy (wind) now cheaper than nat'l gas, thus massive stranded assets

local power grid resilient b/c it's local, not dependent on larger system.

3rd industrial revo non-hier; must be glob-LOCAL; feed-in tariffs let local ppl go to bank and get loan b/c knew could repay

merkel

china big green grid investment 12 wks after mtg w/ Jeremy Rifkin wrote The Green New Deal: Why the Fossil Fuel Civilization Will Collapse by 2028, and the Bold Economic Plan to Save Life on Earthaudio interview 9/19.

rifkin

LNG, Plastics and Other Gas Industry Plans Would Add Climate Pollution Equal to 50 New Coal Plants

desmog 1.20

==

https://yyy.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/03/booming-lng-industry-could-be-as-bad-for-climate-as-coal-experts-warn

no lnx

The booming liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry will play at least as big a role as new coal investments in bringing on a climate crisis if all planned projects go ahead, US-based energy analysts and campaigners say.

The report by the Global Energy Monitor appears at odds with comments by Australia’s emissions reduction minister, Angus Taylor, who has said the country could be proud that the rapidly expanding LNG export industry was displacing coal power overseas.

Government analysis identified LNG as the main reason Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen each year since 2015, but the minister and industry say Australian gas deserves credit for lowering global emissions.

'Problem in waiting': why natural gas will wipe out Australia's emissions gains

Read more

The Global Energy Monitor, formerly known as CoalSwarm, is a US-based research and advocacy group that tracks fossil fuel development. It found there were US$1.3tn in planned LNG investments across the globe, including nearly $38bn in Australia, putting it fourth on a list behind the US, Canada and Russia.

Ted Nace, the group’s executive director, said the proposed tripling of global LNG capacity risked introducing decades of emissions of methane, a potent and difficult-to-monitor greenhouse gas, at odds with the Paris climate agreement. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year estimated methane emissions would need to be reduced by 35% between 2010 and 2050 to meet the Paris goals.

“The one piece of good news is that most of these projects are in the pre-construction stage so there is still time for a moratorium on LNG infrastructure before we lock ourselves into even more irreversible climate damage,” he said.

A separate study in the journal Nature found existing fossil fuel infrastructure alone, including coal and gas-fired power stations, would almost certainly be enough to push the world beyond 1.5C global heating if not shut down earlier than planned.

Australia’s LNG industry has already more than tripled since 2012as developments have come online in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. A recent government Resources and Energy Quarterly report forecast the value of Australian LNG exports will be nearly $50bn this year, second only to iron ore.

Natural gas is at times described as a transition fuel in the response to the climate crisis as it has about half the carbon dioxide emissions of black coal when burned to generate electricity. That argument has been rejected by the head of the International Energy Agency and science bodies warning the world needs to rapidly move to clean energy and industries.

Nace said it was difficult to compare emissions from coal and gas given their different nature. Gas has lower CO2 emissions than black coal when burned for electricity, but LNG developments also leak methane, which is a relatively short-lived gas that lasts in the atmosphere about 12 years but still has a warming power about 28 times greater than the same amount of CO2 when calculated over a century.

A recent study found the level of atmospheric methane has increased significantly since 2007 after a relative flat period. Scientists are unsure why.

Sign up to receive the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

Global Energy Monitor researchers found fugitive methane emissions from new LNG extraction and processing would be expected to have as large or larger global heating impact than proposed coal power expansion.

“The truth about LNG is nobody knows what is happening across the supply chain,” Nace said. “But it’s very easy to see leakage of 2% to 3% and if that much gets away into the atmosphere it is significant – it gives a jolt of warming.”

On Taylor’s claim that Australia’s gas was displacing coal in Asia, Nace said it was likely this was true in some places, particularly parts of China, but in others it was being used to meet new energy demand that could be delivered with clean energy.

Australia won't reach Paris target without action on transport, LNG and coal, expert says

Read more

Taylor has said Australia’s LNG exports had the potential to lower global emissions by up to 148m tonnes last year, equivalent to 27% of Australia’s annual climate pollution. The department reached this estimate by assuming all exported Australian gas was used to replace coal.

The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association chief executive, Andrew McConville, said the Global Energy Monitor study was flawed as it compared the total emissions from coal and gas but did not include a genuine lifecycle analysis, which would show gas had a significantly lesser impact.

He said the association supported a national climate policy that cut emissions at least cost and supported investment decisions “consistent with an international price on carbon”.

“Australia’s oil and gas sector has a vital role to play in meeting the challenge of reducing global emissions,” McConville said.

Nace said LNG developments were on a collision course with the Paris agreement and the declining cost of renewable energy. He said it created the risk of more than US$1tn in stranded assets.

“These are 40-year investments from an industry standpoint,” he said. “Natural gas infrastructure may be competitive in three, four or five years but do people expect it to be competitive with renewables in 15 years?”

Comment was sought from Taylor.

==

Win:

OR LNG  sierra club

http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/12/ferc-denies-jordan-cove-lng/

=

==

punked?

On November 7th, a train carrying ethanol in DOT-111 tank cars derailed in Wisconsin, resulting in rail cars rupturing and a spill of 18,000 gallons of ethanol into the Mississippi River.

The next day, a train carrying Bakken crude oil derailed in a residential area in Watertown, Wisconsin, resulting in a spill of around 1,000 gallons of oil.

These two spills provide another stark reminder of the dangers of moving oil and ethanol along waterways and through residential areas.

It also apparently provided an opportunity for National Public Radio (NPR) to push multiple oil and rail industry talking points. And the article on NPR's website notes NPR is sponsored by America's Natural Gas (ANGA).

==

Despite ongoing opposition from area residents, the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) has approved the conversion of the Dominion Cove Point liquified natural gas (LNG) facility in southern Maryland from an import to an export facility. The decision also authorizes the installation of additional compression at Dominion’s Pleasant Valley Compressor Station and related facilities in Northern Virginia.

===

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/04/3443211/energy-department-lng-no-climate-benefits/

 The tobacco industry for decades sponsored bogus science, went out to try to create doubt in the media as to whether or not the cigarettes were harmful to people. And that strategy was developed by a PR firm called Hill & Knowlton. The America’s Natural Gas Alliancehired the same PR firm in 2009, and we’re seeing that same kind of strategy of creating doubt and of creating a false debate in the media over whether or not this drilling contaminates water.

  1. ### Portal:Water - :{SourceWatch:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: 

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Portal:Water‎

As one of the largest ":{natural:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:" :{gas:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: fields in North :{America:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, it is one of the top targets of the:{gas:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: industry. Energy companies have honed in on the region, as well **...**

  1. ### American :{Gas:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Association - :{SourceWatch:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: 

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Gas_Association‎

Feb 26, 2013 - The American :{Gas:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Association (AGA) is a trade group for :{natural gas:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:utilities companies. **...** Give :{Americans:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Solutions Act, or the “NAT :{GAS:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Act,” is a bipartisan**...** as well as AGA, the :{Natural Gas Alliance:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and Energy in Depth.

  1. ### Cabot Oil and :{Gas:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: - :{SourceWatch:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: 

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cabot_Oil_and_Gas‎

Mar 5, 2011 - Cabot's PAC also donated $15,000 to Senate and House Republican Campaign Committees and supported :{America's Natural Gas Alliance:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, **...**

  1. ### Andrew D.**Lundquist**- :{SourceWatch:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: 

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Andrew_D._Lundquist‎

Jump to**Natural Gas Alliance** and Hydraulic Fracturing  - ... the views of America's Natural Gas Alliance - a pro-natural gas, pro-hydro fracturing - to elected ...

  1. ### Shale formations in the United States - :{SourceWatch:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: 

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Shale_formations_in_the_United_States‎

Jump toUS shale **gas** production  - The associations representing the natural gas industry, such as America's Natural Gas Alliance, were invited to be on ...

  1. ### Waxman-Markey Climate Bill - :{SourceWatch:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: 

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Waxman-Markey_Climate_Bill‎

This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on :{SourceWatch:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, a project of **.....** :{America's Natural Gas Alliance:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: has 28 member companies and an estimated budget **...**

===

:{But it goes hand in hand with a strategy that’s very overt in the media, which is to buy—you can’t turn on the TV, except for perhaps this show, where you’re not going to see ads from the natural gas industry. And we’re seeing also editorials and these kinds of things on blog posts seeded to do things to try to discredit the very clear science, and in most cases the science that the industry themselves did. This is following the tobacco industry’s playbook. The tobacco industry for decades sponsored bogus science, went out to try to create doubt in the media as to whether or not the cigarettes were harmful to people. And that strategy was developed by a PR firm called Hill & Knowlton. The America’s Natural Gas Alliance hired the same PR firm in 2009, and we’re seeing that same kind of strategy of creating doubt and of creating a false debate in the media over whether or not this drilling contaminates water.:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:

===

aM NAT GAS GROUP HIRES hILL& k http://vimeo.com/44367635 

==

The American Clean Skies Foundation -- a Washington D.C. based 501(c)3 non-profit group -- states on its website that it "was formed in 2007 to provide all the facts on clean energy -- particularly natural gas and other clean fuels such as wind and solar -- and about the need for greater energy efficiency."[1] The organization was founded by Aubrey K. McClendon, the billionaire CEO of Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake Energy Corp., one of the country's top sellers of natural gas.[2]

In December 2007, the Foundation reported $2,836,504 in assets and $3,166,303 in income, according to Internal Revenue Service reports. [3]

Contents

[hide]

Clean Skies TV Network

In April 2008, the Foundation launched CleanSkies.tv, later renamed the Clean Skies TV Network. The online video channel "has applied for press credentials that would place its reporters and crew inside the U.S. Capitol," according to Dow Jones. The CleanSkies.tv program "Clean Skies Sunday," which is anchored byformer CBS Morning News host Susan McGinnis, is also broadcast by the WJLA-7, the ABC affiliate in Washington DC. One show featured Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon discussing a Clean Skies Foundation report that concluded "natural gas supplies are vast enough to meet current demand for more than 100 years, a key talking point by the natural gas industry in its congressional lobbying efforts." [4] [5]

CleanSkies.tv initially had "peer-group partners," which "advise it on select programming," including Honda USA, Natural Gas Vehicles for America and natural-gas provider Clean Energy Fuels. [6]

In late 2008, Chesapeake plans to launch another online video channel, Shale.tv, named after the Barnett Shale natural gas formation in North Texas. [7]

Branded News

CleanSkies.tv was initially "operated by Branded News, the Oklahoma company that also runs the National Rifle Association's online television site." The CleanSkies.tv news division "is part of the CleanSkies.tv network, but says its activities are shielded from the foundation's influence by an oversight committee chaired by former Associated Press Chairman Burl Osborne," according to a 2008 article. [4]

As of 2009, the Clean Skies Network website stated, "The Board of Directors of the [American Clean Skies] Foundation believes that one of the best ways they can accomplish their mission is to fully support our News Division in its efforts to inform the public about all forms of energy, objectively and free from bias. Clean Skies News operates with full editorial independence in its' [sic] reporting, guaranteed." [8]

ShaleCountry.Com

In July 2010, ACSF launched the "Shale Country" website, to promote their mission of promoting natural gas as a clean fuel.

The video aspect of this project is being managed by Harriet Gordon Getzels.

Personnel

In 2008, the CleanSkies.tv program "Energy Matters" was hosted by former oil lobbyist Denise Bode and was also broadcast on Oklahoma's News Radio 1000, KTOK. [4]

In addition to McGinnis, former journalists working for CleanSkies.tv in 2008 included Kelley Rickenbaker, formerly of CBS and CNN; Jim Allen; and Anna Davalos, formerly of theAssociated PressOnline Video Network. [9]

Personnel

Former personnel

Contact details

American Clean Skies Foundation

750 1st St N.E. Suite 1100

Washington D.C. 20002

Phone: 202-682-6294

Fax: 202-682-3050

Website: http://www.cleanskies.org/

Mission Statement as Propaganda

The American Clean Skies Foundation was formed to educate the American public about clean energy- particularly natural gas and other clean fuels such as wind and solar- and about the need for greater energy efficiency, and for any other exclusively religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purpose included within the meaning of section 501(c) (3) of the Internal revenue Code of 1986 or the corresponding section of any future tax code (the "Code")

Derrick Jensen and others have pointed out that an element of successful propaganda is if the creators of the message can slide their premises by the audience, without their noticing. So when a Nazi sympathizer asks the question, "What are we going to do about the Jewish problem?", if you answer, he has won, because he has gotten you to accept the premise that a) there is a Jewish problem, and b) something should be done about it. It looks like a question, but it is actually propaganda.

Similarly, we normally don't think about a mission statement as being propaganda, but notice well this part:

The American Clean Skies Foundation was formed to educate the American public about clean energy- particularly natural gas and other clean fuels....

OK, clean fuels. That's all good. But why mention natural gas here at all? Why not just say "we want to educate about clean fuels" and let the science show what that is? How did they decide a priori that natural gas was "clean energy"? Is this a natural fact which no one disputes? Or is there controversy and doubt about this claim? (A: There is controversy around this claim!) Do the creators of this so-called charitable foundation have financial connections to the gas industry? (Yes, they do!)

Links

Note that the NTEE classification is "Environmental Quality Protection, Beautification / (Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis)"

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. ↑ "Your Gift Will Have a Lasting Impact", American Clean Skies Foundation website, accessed May 2008.
  2. ↑ Dina Cappiello, "Natural Gas: Aubrey McClendon's energy 'education' campaign" ClimateWire, April 24, 2008.
  3. ↑ "American Clean Skies Foundation," GuideStar.org, accessed September 2008.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Siobhan Hughes, "CleanSkies.TV Enjoys Backing of Top Natural Gas Executive," Dow Jones (sub req'd), August 8, 2008.
  5. ↑ Press release, "American Clean Skies Foundation Chairman Aubrey McClendon to Announce Launch Date for New CLEANSKIES.TV Network, Multi-Million Dollar Advocacy Campaign on Clean Energy and Natural Gas,& Findings from New National Polls on Clean Energy," American Clean Skies Foundation / Rational PR via PR Newswire, February 22, 2008.
  6. ↑ Mariah Blake, "Cloudy Skies," Columbia Journalism Review, January / February 2009.
  7. ↑ Bill Dawson, "Natural Gas Firm Going Online With 'Shale.tv' Programming," Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media, September 4, 2008.
  8. ↑ "About Clean Skies," Clean Skies TV Network website, accessed July 2009.
  9. ↑ Press release, "American Clean Skies Foundation Chairman Aubrey McClendon to Announce Launch Date for New CLEANSKIES.TV Network, Multi-Million Dollar Advocacy Campaign on Clean Energy and Natural Gas & Findings from New National Polls on Clean Energy," American Clean Skies Foundation, February 22, 2008.
  10. ↑ American Clean Skies Foundation, American Clean Skies Foundation website, accessed June 2008

External resources

External articles

Categories: 

==

Lobbying and donationsA 2012 press release by MarcellusMoney.org stated that the "natural gas industry and related trade groups have now given nearly $8 million to Pennsylvania state candidates and political committees since 2000.... Top recipients of industry money given between 2000 and April 2012 were Governor

Tom Corbett (R) with $1,813,205.59, Senate President Joseph Scarnati (R-25) with $359,145.72, Rep. Dave Reed (R-62) with $137,532.33, House Majority Leader Rep. Mike Turzai (R-28) with $98,600, and Sen. Don White (R-41) with $94,150.[16]

The 2011 Common Cause report, "Deep drilling, deep pockets, in Washington and Pennsylvania," found that "from 2001 through June 2011, the fracking industry gave $20.5 million to current members of Congress and spent $726 million on lobbying."

Two Pennsylvanians, Rep. Tim Murphy, and Sen. Pat Toomey, ranked among the leading recipients in Congress in gas industry donations (10th and 28th respectively). Murphy has received $275,499 and Toomey $160,750. Other PA recipients included Rep. Jason Altmire (D) with $65,365; Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) with $60,800; Rep. Bill Shuster (R) with $59,000; Rep. Charles Dent (R) with $56,500; and Rep. Glenn Thompson (R) with $52,000.

The natural gas industry contributed about $1.6 million to Gov. Corbett’s political campaigns from 2001 to 2011, about $1.1 million of that for his campaign for governor.[17]

The American Gas Association (AGA) is a trade group for natural gas utilities companies. Founded in 1989, AGA has 501(c)(6) status and lobbies for pro-methane gas legislation. It represents several large and multi-national methane gas companies, while touting its "local" connection on its website. In 2010, AGA spent $980,000 lobbying the federal government.[1]

AGA's 2009 gross revenue was almost $49 million. Its former President and CEO, David N. Parker, received a total of $1.38 million from AGA and its associated organizations in 2009.[2]

Support for the American Legislative Exchange Council

AGA is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Tom Moskitis, Managing Director of External Affairs for AGA (and a federal lobbyist for natural gas) is the 2011 co-chair of ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.[3][4]

About ALEC
ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy'sALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.

AGA and Fracking

Many AGA corporations are involved in the controversial practice of fracking for methane gas in the Northeastern U.S. in the Marcellus Shale region and elsewhere. Though lauded as an environmentally-friendly alternative to coal, fracking for gas has been linked to depleting drinking water resources of local communities and polluting the wells of the people living around drill sites. According to a 2010 article in Vanity Fair, "as use of the technique (fracking) has spread, it has been followed by incidents of water contamination and environmental degradation, and even devastating health problems." [5] And according to data released to the EPA, Halliburton, a major supplier of fracking fluid, admitted using 807,000 gallons of diesel-based chemicals in its fluids, in violation of an agreement drillers had with the EPA.[6]

Natural Gas Act 2011

H.R. 1380, also called the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act, or the “NAT GAS Act,” is a bipartisan measure that would give provide federal tax cuts for vehicles powered by natural gas. It is a federal bill that was introduced into the 112th Congress by Rep. John Sullivan of (R-OK) and 187 co-sponsors.

"If enacted into law it will extend the tax credit of 50 cents per gallon of liquid natural gas (or its equivalent of compressed natural gas) when used for fueling vehicles, and will provide purchasers of natural gas vehicles with credits ranging from $7,500 (passenger cars) to $64,000 (big trucks). There will also be credits for natural gas vehicle manufacturers and for installing natural gas filling stations."[7]

The bill has been pushed and lobbied for primarily by oil and gas tycoon T. Boone Pickens, as well as AGA, the Natural Gas Alliance and Energy in Depth. They argue that the bill, if passed as is, could help the U.S. reduce its reliance on foreign oil by as much as half.

Lobbying and Political Contributions

In 2010, Open Secrets reports that the AGA PAC spent a total of $424,862 in federal political contributions. House Democrats received $116,500 and House Republicans received $117,500. Senate Democrats received $30,500 and Senate Republicans received $51,500. [8]

Members

The members page of AGA's website is not accessible. Some members are known, and they include:

Board of Directors

Directors

Contact

AGA Main Switchboard

202-824-7000

400 North Capitol Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

External resources

External articles

References

  1. ↑ Center for Responsive Politics, "American Gas Assn: 2010 Total Lobbying Expenditures," OpenSecrets.org online database, accessed June 27, 2011
  2. ↑ American Gas Association, "2009 Form 990," Schedule J-2, Internal Revenue Service filing, November 12, 2010, p. 30
  3. ↑ Thomas L. Moskitis profile, Consumer Energy Alliance, accessed July 8, 2011.
  4. ↑ Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force, ALEC website, accessed July 8, 2011.
  5. ↑ "A Colossal Fracking Mess", Vanity Fair 2010.
  6. ↑ "Fracking Halliburton", Mother Jones.
  7. ↑ Energy Subsidies: Our Gifts That Keep On Taking,"Larry Bell, Forbes Blog. May 17, 2011"
  8. ↑ Center for Responsive Politics, AGA Contributions to Federal Candidates, 2010, Open Secrets, accessed July 8, 2011.
  9. ↑ American Gas Association, "Board of Directors," organization website, accessed June 27, 2011
This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

Categories: