Barrasso, J Sen 8% 1.2m$

lcv score 7/100

capt 2/17

rabid partisan

see BAK

TOOK OVER EPW CHAIR FROM INHOFE?

medical degree from Georgetown University

ranked most conservative, has moved right; important committee membership, ally of inhofe

919 bak

member of both the Energy and Environment Committees.

ties to ATI?

html 14:08

===

https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/john-barrasso

13* LIFE 8%

===

secret sci BS lamar

----

open secrets

Throughout his career, Inhofe has received in excess of $2.2 million in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies. Daines and Barrasso have each received $1.2 million from the industry.

===

10 24

ymail

Did you see the recent email from our ally in Congress, Representative Raúl Grijalva (R-AZ)? He’s urging his colleagues in Congress to reject a new giveaway to the fossil fuel industry: coal baron Senator Joe Manchin’s (I-WV) Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024.

This legislation would weaken and even eliminate public input and community approvals for dirty energy projects on Native homelands. Already, the U.S. federal government has frequently failed to get the required consent of Tribal Nations before moving ahead with large-scale projects affecting Tribal lands and waters, like the Dakota Access Pipeline. The U.S. federal government owes Tribes Nation-to-Nation relationships where we co-manage our lands and waters. We can’t let corporate polluters and their government allies further desecrate Tribal sovereignty or Mother Earth.

After the *Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 was introduced, the group Appalachian Voices wrote:

*“The Energy Permitting Reform Act is a fossil-fuel industry wishlist. If lawmakers want to reform our energy permitting process, they should start by listening to the people living near these projects, not the fossil fuel industries that extract resources from those communities and leave them with polluted air and water. And they should follow the example of Rep. Raúl Grijalva’s A. Donald McEachin Environmental Justice For All Act, which is what permitting reform should look like.”

The A. Donald McEachin Environmental Justice For All Act would ensure that Native communities are part of the decision-making processes about our lands and waters, recognizing the Nation-to-Nation relationships that Tribes are owed. We need policies like that, not policies that threaten Mother Earth and undermine Indigenous peoples’ inherent and legal right to sovereignty....

As the ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Natural Resources Committee, I’ve worked with Tribes and Native-led groups like Native Organizers Alliance Action Fund on policies to protect sacred places and defend Indigenous sovereignty.

Right now, we’re trying to stop another dangerous policy from Big Oil and their polluter friends to fast-track approvals for dirty energy and mining projects.

Senators Manchin and Barrasso introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024, which would attack our bedrock environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act -- undermining the main tools that communities and Tribes can use to protect themselves from polluting projects.

We cannot allow the federal government to further silence Native communities, whose voices have already been suppressed throughout this country’s long history of laws and policies to deny Native and Tribal communities their rights. Tribes should have more input in crucial policy decisions that affect their lands and waters, not less....

===

dirty trick

an 9 22 badash

More than 50 House and Senate Republicans are joining in an effort to disenfranchise “lame duck” Democrats in the House and Senate to prevent them from voting on critical budget legislation, but not trying to apply the same standard to their fellow GOP lawmakers.

In a move that sounds somewhat like what Senator Mitch McConnell did to derail Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court appointment, the far-right Republicans are urging their colleagues to block any budget bill until a new Congress is sworn in, hoping Democrats lose control of one or both branches of Congress.“

The Monday letters come as Congress has 10 days to take action before government funding runs out at the end of the fiscal year after Sept. 30,” The Hill reports.

“We must not accept anything short of a ‘clean’ Continuing Resolution (‘CR’) that contains no additional spending or extraneous policy riders,” writes Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) in the Senate GOP’s letter. “At a minimum, any agreement on a clean CR must carry over into the beginning of the 118th Congress. Failure to stand strong against lame-duck spending and caving to the Democrats will likely worsen inflation, prolong the current economic recession, and advance policies contained in the Biden administration’s progressive wish-list.”

The U.S. is not in a recession, nor is one expected in the coming months.

The House letter is even more extreme.

“Federal dollars are fueling rampant inflation and funding theBiden administration’s radical agenda,” it begins. “This includes empowering authoritarian bureaucrats at agencies like the IRS and FBI, implementing open-border policies that are threatening our communities, imposing COVID-19 mandates that shut down schools and are forcing our military servicemembers out of their jobs, and advancing self-destructive energy policies.”

Among the far right Republicans signing on to the Senate letter are Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL).

In the House, signatories include far right GOP Members of Congress Chip Roy, Ralph Norman, Jim Banks, Dan Bishop, Jim Jordan, Lauren Boebert, Kat Cammack, Scott DesJarlais, Scott Perry, Jody Hice, Ken Buck, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Byron Donalds, Thomas Massie, and Louie Gohmert.

===

===

an raw 922

WASHINGTON — Senators returned to Washington, D.C. last week from the August Recess and many of the GOP members were enraged over Democrats.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) was furious when Raw Story asked him about whether Republicans want Donald Trump to stand next to them during the 2022 campaign season. Immediately he lashed out at President Joe Biden for the speech he made about radical right-wing extremists and domestic terrorism.

Sunday marks the 21 anniversary of Sept. 11, when America was attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists, which launched two wars that lasted until only recently. Republicans frequently demanded to know why political leaders wouldn't attack "radical Islamic terrorism," accusing Democrats of refusing to even say the words publicly. After 21 years, however, the terrorism has become homegrown and it's Republicans who seem unwilling to talk about domestic extremism.

Barrasso, a strong McConnell ally, lambasted Biden for refusing to talk about "prices," which is what he says Americans truly care about. For months, the Republican talking points have been about gas prices as a top concern and claims Americans would be voting on that and inflation in November. After moves by the president to release more of the reserves and threatening action on price gouging, gas prices have come down.

Outgoing Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) told Raw Story that he never actually heard Trump's speech when he came to his state but that he did hear reports about Trump's promise to pardon Jan. 6 insurrectionists. For Democrats, however, it's often times difficult for statewide candidates to win across the board, but Casey said that both Lt. Gov. John Fetterman and Attorney General Josh Shapiro are doing exceptionally well.

"In both races, they will garner significant Republicans support, maybe more Republican support than anyone would have imagined," said Casey. He went on to say that there are parts of the state where Republicans are "trying to disassociate themselves from the hard-right or the MAGA Republicans, whatever you want to call that part of their party. A lot of these voters are having real doubts about whether they want extreme candidates to be their governor or senator."

He went on to say that the more Trump seems to go out and do rallies the more he divides the GOP.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said that Biden's speech didn't change anyone's mind and he wouldn't have said it the way that Biden did.

"I'm hoping that people start seeing the facts about what's been coming out," he went on. "It's been atrocious and people have been turning a blind eye to it. I'm hoping they're seeing the truth."

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) confessed that after all that Trump has done over the past six years, "there's not a lot that shocks people in Connecticut at this point."

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) recalled President Joe Biden's announcement speech made in the early days of the 2020 election season. He was chastised by other Democrats for being too optimistic and too pollyannaish for believing that bipartisanship could still happen at the time of such division.

"If you listened to his entire speech and not the few snippets," Coons said of Biden's more recent speech about the domestic terror threats the U.S. faces from right-wing extremists. "He dedicated a lot of time to being optimistic, and to being clear that he believes that the vast majority of Americans don't support political violence and don't believe in overturning elections by force."

"When the former president in Pennsylvania, I think it was the next day, if reelected I will offer a pardon to those who assaulted the officers at the capitol I think that's what President Biden is talking about," Coons said.

He went on to say that from Delaware he sees a lot of campaign ads and that the 2022 election isn't about Biden vs. Trump. His example was looking at Lt. Gov. John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania. Coons said that the race isn't about Trump there, it's about who's from Pennsylvania and shares Pennsylvania values and who has ideas for saving manufacturing and jobs in the state.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) had another opinion entirely, saying that Democrats like Biden are only attacking MAGA violence "because they can't run on their policy agenda. The Biden agenda has been a miserable failure." He went on to talk about gas prices "through the roof" and inflation that the whole world appears to be suffering under. He went on to say that crime was out of control, which has seen a slight uptickbeginning under the Trump administration, the BBC reported.

"All of the radical left Democratic policies are profoundly unpopular," Cruz claimed falsely. That's the reason he says that Democrats are talking about fascism, before falsely characterizing it as half of the country, he said, falling under that violent extremist banner. In fact, an overwhelming majority of Americans don't support the political violence being seen.

Since taking office, Biden passed landmark legislation that Republicans opposed that continue to be popular among voters. The COVID-19 bailout was his first, followed by the infrastructure and jobs plan. He then signed two stopgap measures in Sept. 2021 and Dec. 2021 to avoid the government shutdowns Trump kept having. Biden then passed the chips bill that would require semiconductors be made in the United States again, which will dramatically expand manufacturing in the U.S. Finally, he passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which will lower prescription drug prices, tackle climate change, reduce the deficit and issue a minimum tax on profits of the largest corporations in the U.S.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) called all Democrats "deranged" and said that they're trying not to

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) said that people don't care about political violence from the far-right in West Virginia and are focused on their own economy.

But it was Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) that gave the most interesting details about Trump in his state, saying that people were interested in the infrastructure projects that are starting.

Kaine said that Trump isn't a factor in elections in Virginia, but it's clear he's trying to make himself a factor. In fact, Kaine confessed that not one person asked him about Trump or MAGA policies in Virginia. They simply don't care about him anymore.

===

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/**2021/02**/biden-climate-change-actions-anger-big-oil/

President Joe Biden signed executive actions last week prioritizing solutions to the “existential threat” of climate change, drawing the ire of many key players in the politically powerful oil and gas industry.

Biden’s actions pressed pause on the leasing of federal lands and waters for oil drilling, set a goal of keeping 30 percent of federal lands for conservation purposes and announced the electrification of the federal government’s fleet of vehicles.The move comes a week after Biden revoked the permits for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline just hours after his inauguration, following through on a campaign-trail promise.

Leading up to the 2020 election, the oil and gas industry contributed around $1.6 million more to former President Donald Trump than to Biden. Trump painted himself as an ally to the industry on the stump and throughout his presidency — though industry insiders told Politico in 2020 that the Trump administration was “a mixed bag” and “more like ‘meh’” than the windfall they had hoped for in 2016.

The oil industry spent millions in 2020 to try to keep a GOP majority in the Senate. Valero, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, among the few corporations that give to super PACs, gave at least $1 million each this election cycle to the Senate Leadership Fund, a conservative super PAC that spent $271 million to campaign against Democrats vying for the Senate.

Pausing land and water leases ‘to the extent possible’

Biden’s decision to halt future leases of federal land, pending a comprehensive review of the climate impact, caused an uproar among oil and gas companies and trade associations. Just hours after Biden formalized the order, the Western Energy Alliance announced it would sue the Biden administration, alleging the move violates existing law.

Most drilling occurs on private land, rather than federal property. In 2017, approximately 24 percent of oil and 13 percent of natural gas extracted in the United States came from federal lands. According to analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey, around a quarter of U.S. emissions come from the combustion and extraction of resources from federal lands.

Oil and gas companies rushed to stockpile drilling permits during Trump’s lameduck period — doubling the number of permit requests over the same period in 2019, according to an AP report.Under Biden’s order, oil and gas companies can continue to obtain new permits to drill on land that has already been leased.

Experts say the executive action likely won’t immediately impact rates of oil extraction in the U.S. As of 2019, there were 38,294 leases active across the country, concentrated mostly in the American West. Once a lease has been issued, companies have 10 years to begin production on the land before the lease terminates.

The oil and gas industry’s leading trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, came out against the order. API President Mike Sommers criticized Biden’s suspension of federal agencies’ authority to issue leases of federal land to drilling companies in a Jan. 21 statement.

“Restricting development on federal lands and waters is nothing more than an ‘import more oil’ policy. Energy demand will continue to rise—especially as the economy recovers—and we can choose to produce that energy here in the United States or rely on foreign countries hostile to American interests,” Sommers said.

In 2020, API’s PAC spent $88,200 to support Republican candidates, giving $5,000 to the Great America PAC, a Trump-aligned Carey committee. API also dropped $5.3 million to employ 40 lobbyists, reporting lobbying 66 individual bills. The institute’s lobbying spending fell during Trump’s administration after trending upward throughout former President Barack Obama’s two terms in office.

Another leading oil and gas industry association, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, has also come out in opposition to the action.

“We think it was really misguided,” Senior Vice President for Government Relations Dan Naatz told an Arkansas TV news team. “It impacts jobs and economies through the inner-Mountain West, all the way through the country.”

In 2020, the organization’s PAC spent $215,300 in campaign contributions, giving $10,000 each to Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and former Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Martha McSally (R-Ariz.).

Biden framed the executive action as a jobs package,remarking, “today is climate day in the White House which means today is jobs day at the White House,” just before he signed the executive actions. Labor leaders say they are waiting to hear how exactly Biden will replace jobs lost in energy sectors.

“It’s too glib and easy to say someone working in the mines can get a solar job. That is too simplistic,” Jason Walsh, executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, told the Washington Examiner. “There is a mismatch between where energy jobs are getting lost and where they are created. We have to close that gap, but we also have to be real and help economies diversify their economies in ways based on their own assets.”

Oil corporations emphasize that gap. The Global Energy Institute, a subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, came out against some of Biden’s climate actions, claiming it would lead to widespread unemployment.

“Without the prospect of future leases, investment and planning will begin to dry up immediately, thwarting job creation and the economic growth at the worst possible time,” the Institute’s President Marty Durbin said in a statement.

The Chamber of Commerce perennially favors Republicans and dropped $5.7 million in outside spending in 2020.

Keystone canceled, frustrating some oil companies

The Chamber of Commerce also condemned Biden’s action to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline, a project widely opposed by environmental advocates, indigenous communities and scientists.

“This is a politically motivated decision that is not grounded in science. It will harm consumers and put thousands of Americans in the building trades out of work,” Durbin said.

The Keystone XL pipeline was proposed in 2008, vetoed by Obama in 2015 and promptly re-initiated by Trump in 2016 along with another controversial project, the Dakota Access Pipeline. Environmental and indigenous rights advocates are now calling on Biden to cancel the latter pipeline, which abuts the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

That pipeline is owned by Energy Transfer Partners, an oil and gas conglomerate that gave more in campaign contributions than any other company in the industry. Ninety-nine percent of its donations went to Republican candidates and committees. In 2020, the company’s co-founder and board chair, Kelcy Warren, donated a whopping $10 million to America First Action, a Trump-affiliated super PAC.

Biden’s climate actions are also drawing criticism from Republican lawmakers from oil-rich states who have benefited from industry contributions. Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), **John Barrasso**(R-Wyo.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) announced Jan. 22 that they wouldintroduce legislation to overturn Biden’s executive action and re-issue permits to the Keystone XL Pipeline, which was slated to pass through Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska before connecting to an existing pipeline in Kansas.

“We came so far during the last administration – from prioritizing American energy development to ending the far-left’s war on fossil fuels,” said Inhofe in a statement announcing the legislation.

Throughout his career, Inhofe has received in excess of $2.2 million in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies. Daines and Barrasso have each received $1.2 million from the industry.

The group’s bill is a symbolic gesture to the industry and its supporters without any real hope of passing the Senate, where Democrats wield a majority, albeit narrowly. The oil and gas industry spent heavily to prevent the upper chamber from swinging blue, giving around $600,000 each to Republican Senate candidates in Georgia Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, who both lost narrowly to Democratic challengers in January runoffs. The American Petroleum Institute donated $5 million to the Senate Leadership Fund in late November, after every Senate campaign had concluded save the two ultra-expensive Georgia races.

Faced with pressure from Washington, other corporations look to adapt

Some energy companies are taking a different tact, announcing plans to adapt their business model to thrive in a Biden administration that prioritizes conservation and climate action.

Industry giant Exxon Mobil announced Feb. 1, just days after Biden’s executive order, that it would initiate massive investments in carbon capture technology aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The company, whose employees favored Biden over Trump in 2020 campaign contributions, will spend $3 billion over the next five years to build up a new subsidiary business: ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions.

General Motors has committed to only manufacturing zero-emissions vehicles by the year 2035, inline with Biden’s commitment to electrifying the government’s fleet. Ford’s new CEO has also pledged to restructure production plans, prioritizing the addition of electric vehicles to its portfolio, which currently features only one fully-electric model.

The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, an oil-refining trade association that spent $3.2 to lobby the government in 2019, responded to that provision by reaching out to an unlikely ally: biofuel manufacturers. AFPM reportedly hopes to create an alliance with the competitor industry to lobby Biden to revise his fleet electrification plans in order to include cars powered by low-emission gasoline made from a mix of gasoline and ethanol.

===

https://www.ecowatch.com/koch-brothers-paris-agreement-2430226599.html

Paris Exit Was 'Victory Paid and Carried Out' by Republican Party for the Koch Brothers

nolink

The 22 Republican senators who sent a letter to President Donald Trump last week urging the United States' withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement received more than $10 million dollars in campaign funds from fossil fuel interests.

The two-page letter was signed by a number of Republican heavyweights from coal/gas/oil-rich states, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Ted Cruz of Texas.

The Guardian calculated that the 22 senators received a total of $10,694,284 from oil, gas and coal money in just five years. (See the breakdown below.

However, that sum does not even come close to the amount of undisclosed funds coming from the deep pockets of Charles and David Koch's coal, oil and gas conglomerate, Koch Industries, and other outside groups.

As the Guardian explains:

"Visible donations to Republicans from those industries exceeded donations to Democrats in the 2016 election cycle by a ratio of 15-to-1, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And that does not include so-called dark money passed from oil interests such as Koch industries to general slush funds to re-elect Republicans such as the Senate leadership fund.

"At least $90m in untraceable money has been funneled to Republican candidates from oil, gas and coal interests in the past three election cycles, according to Federal Election Commission disclosures analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics."

Jeffrey Sachs, professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, shared recently his views on Trump's climate walkout.In an interview with Bloomberg Surveillance, Sachs referenced the senators' letter and specifically cast blame on the billionaire oil barons for pulling the strings of Republican party leaders such as McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, who both supported exiting the Paris accord.

"This is the victory paid and carried out for 20 years by two people, David and Charles Koch," Sachs said. "They have bought and purchased the top of the Republican party. Trump is a tool in this."

Notably, most of the Republican signatories of the letter do not support the belief that human activity contributes to climate change.

During an appearance on MSNBC, Democratic Sen. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts explained why he thinks his Republican colleagues do not believe in the science of climate change.

"This Conservative party in the United States is funded by the Koch brothers [and] it's funded by the coal industry," Markey said. "[They] insist that Scott Pruitt—the Attorney General of Oklahoma that actually sued the EPA 19 times on clean air, clean water, soot, mercury issues—becomes the head of the EPA in our country."

The 22 Republican signatories' funding from Big Oil, Gas and Coal in the past three election cycles (2012, 2014 and 2016):

James Inhofe, Oklahoma

Oil & gas: $465,950 + Coal: $63,600 = $529,550

John Barrasso, Wyoming

Oil & gas: $458,466 + Coal: $127,356 = $585,822

Mitch McConnell, Kentucky

Oil & gas: $1,180,384 + Coal: $361,700 = $1,542,084

John Cornyn, Texas

Oil & gas: $1,101,456 + Coal: $33,050 = $1,134,506

Roy Blunt, Missouri

Oil & gas: $353,864 + Coal: $96,000 = $449,864

Roger Wicker, Mississippi

Oil & gas: $198,816 + Coal: $25,376 = $224,192

Michael Enzi, Wyoming

Oil & gas: $211,083 + Coal: $63,300 = $274,383

Mike Crapo, Idaho

Oil & gas: $110,250 + Coal: $26,756 = $137,006

Jim Risch, Idaho

Oil & gas: $123,850 + Coal: $25,680 = $149,530

Thad Cochran, Mississippi

Oil & gas: $276,905 + Coal: $15,000 = $291,905

Mike Rounds, South Dakota

Oil & gas: $201,900 + Coal: none = $201,900

Rand Paul, Kentucky

Oil & gas: $170,215 + Coal: $82,571 = $252,786

John Boozman, Arkansas

Oil & gas: $147,930 + Coal: $2,000 = $149,930

Richard Shelby, Alabama

Oil & gas: $60,150 + $2,500 = $62,650

Luther Strange, Alabama (Appointed in 2017, running in 2017 special election)

Total: NA

Orrin Hatch, Utah

Oil & gas: $446,250 + Coal: $25,000 = $471,250

Mike Lee, Utah

Oil & gas: $231,520 + Coal: $21,895 = $253,415

Ted Cruz, Texas

Oil & gas: $2,465,910 + Coal: $103,900 = $2,569,810

David Perdue, Georgia

Oil & gas: $184,250 + Coal: $0 = $184,250

Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Oil & gas: $263,400 + Coal: $0 = $263,400

Tim Scott, South Carolina

Oil & gas: $490,076 + Coal: $58,200 = $548,276

Pat Roberts, Kansas

Oil & gas: $388,950 + Coal: $28,825 = $417,775

===

feb 2018

https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/exxonmobils-climate-disinformation-campaign-is-still-alive-and-well/

In a recent blog post, ExxonMobil executive Suzanne McCarronreiterated her company’s claim that it fully accepts the reality of climate change and that it wants to do something about it....“I want to use this opportunity to be 100 percent clear about where we stand on climate change,” she wrote. “We believe the risk of climate change is real and we are committed to being part of the solution. So why is the company still a part of—in fact, a major part of—the problem?An exchange between Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt during a recent is a case in point, providing a window into how ExxonMobil’s undue influence continues to block climate action.

During the January 30 hearing, which was held by the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, Sen. Cory Booker inadvertently provoked Inhofe by raising the issue of environmental justice.The New Jersey Democrat cited the threat climate change-induced flooding poses to three dozen Superfund sites in his state and asked Pruitt if he was “taking into account the environmental burdens disproportionately impacting communities of color, indigenous communities and low-income communities.”

Inhofe seized the opportunity to contradict Booker, claiming that minority and low-income communities are disproportionately harmed by environmental protections, specifically citing the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which would have dramatically reduced carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants if Pruitt hadn’t repealed it.

Booker, Inhofe said, was implying that Pruitt was trying to “punish” vulnerable Americans. “I wanted to just remind you,” Inhofe told the committee, “that we had a guy I remember so well, Harry Alford. He was the president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. He provided some of the most powerful testimony that I have ever heard when it comes to the effects of the Clean Power Plan and some of the other regulations … on black and Hispanic poverty, including job losses and increased energy costs.

“[Alford] was very emphatic as to who was paying the price on these,” the Oklahoma Republican continued, “and I think sometimes that the previous administration forgot that there are already people out there who are paying all they can pay just to try to eat and keep their house warm.”

ExxonMobil’s Echo Chamber

Inhofe’s source for his assertion? A discredited, ExxonMobil-funded study by an Exxon-funded advocacy group that was based on discredited studies by other ExxonMobil-funded organizations.

Inhofe rested his argument on previous congressional testimony by Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC), a shoestring, mom-and-pop operation that is unapologetic about taking fossil fuel industry money. “Of course we do and it is only natural,” Alford wrote on NBCC’s website. “The legacy of Blacks in this nation has been tied to the miraculous history of fossil fuel…. [F]ossil fuels have been our economic friend.”

One of NBCC’s closest economic friends is ExxonMobil, which has donated more than $1.14 million to the group since 2001.

What did the company get for that money?

In 2015, NBCC commissioned a report that claimed the Clean Power Plan would “inflict severe and disproportionate economic burdens on poor families, especially minorities.”

In fact, unchecked climate change would more than likely hurt those communities most, and investments in energy efficiency under the plan would ultimately lower electricity bills across the country.

How did NBCC arrive at its upside-down assessment? The Union of Concerned Scientists took a close look at the report and found it was based on several flawed fossil fuel industry-friendly studies. Two of those bogus studies were produced by ExxonMobil grantees: the Heritage Foundation, which received $340,000 from ExxonMobil between 2007 and 2013, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which received $3 million between 2014 and 2016.

The Chamber study, which came out just days before the EPA released a draft of the Clean Power Plan, was debunked not only by the EPA, but also by *PolitiFact.com* and *The Washington Post*. Among its many faults, the Chamber study—which was co-sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute—wildly inflated the cost of the plan and failed to consider the benefits of cutting carbon emissions.

ExxonMobil Spreads its Money Around

But there’s more than just the fact that ExxonMobil financed deliberately flawed studies to try to derail the Clean Power Plan. The company also is a major supporter of a number of Senate EPW Committee members, including Inhofe, who are adamant climate science deniers.

Inhofe has deep ties to the oil and gas industry, which has donated $1.85 million to his campaign war chest over his long career in Congress, more than twice than any other industry.Three oil and gas companies are among the senator’s top 10 corporate contributors: Koch Industries, Devon Energy and …ExxonMobil.

Six of the other 10 Republicans on the EPW Committee also are on ExxonMobil’s donation list, including Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the current committee chairman. Roughly half of the $119,500 ExxonMobil contributed to the seven senators over the last decade went to Barrasso and Inhofe, the committee’s previous chairman.

Then there’s ExxonMobil’s link to Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general before President Trump tapped him to run the EPA. From 2012 through 2013, he chaired the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA)and afterward served on the organization’s executive committee. From 2014 through 2016, ExxonMobil gave RAGA $160,000 in three annual installments.

Just a few weeks after the company made its 2016 donation of $50,000,Pruitt and then-RAGA Chairman Luther Strange, at the time Alabama’s attorney general, co-authored a National Review column attacking a coalition of state attorneys general investigating ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies for misleading investorsand the general public about climate change. Parroting ExxonMobil’s argument, Pruitt and Strange charged that the coalition was violating the company’s first amendment right to free speech.

“The debate” over climate change, they wrote “is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.”

Inhofe Upstaged

In this case, Inhofe’s counterfactual comment didn’t make it into the ensuing media coverage. Along with nearly everything else that was said during the two-and-a-half hour marathon, it was eclipsed by a bombshell dropped by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. The Rhode Island Democrat revealed that during a February 2016 radio interview, Pruitt said Trump would be “more abusive to the Constitution than Barack Obama, and that’s saying a lot.” Whitehouse read Pruitt’s remark aloud and asked him if he recalled making it.

“I don’t,” Pruitt responded, “and I don’t echo that today at all.”

“I guess not,” Whitehouse replied.

Not surprisingly, that embarrassing nugget was the story. There was no way that Inhofe’s rambling, ExxonMobil-sponsored falsehood could compete in the media with red meat like that. But overshadowed or not, Inhofe provided yet another incontrovertible piece of evidence that—despite ExxonMobil’s statements to the contrary—the company is still very much engaged behind the scenes in trying to stymie any government attempt to seriously address climate change.

Posted in: Climate Change, Energy, Science and Democracy, Scientific Integrity

Tags: disinformation

===

===

https://republicans-science.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-passes-bill-usher-new-era-epa-transparency

off bs

House Passes Bill to Usher in New Era of EPA Transparency

Nov 19, 2014

Press Release

Washington, D.C. – The House of Representatives today approved theSecret Science Reform Act of 2014 (H.R. 4012). The legislation requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to base its regulations on data that is public.

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “Costly environmental regulations should only be based upon data that is available to independent scientists and the public. However, the EPA does not adhere to this practice. Nearly every major air quality regulation from this administration has been justified by data that has been kept secret. This bill requires the EPA to base its decisions on information to which all scientists have access. This will promote sound science and confidence in the EPA decision making process. This bill ensures the transparency and accountability that the American people want and deserve."

The Secret Science Reform Act was introduced by Environment Subcommittee Chairman David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and has received letters of support from over 80 scientists and experts, including the former head of the EPA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the former head of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. It also enjoys the support of 30 national and state trade associations, including theU.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufactures.

Environment Subcommittee Chairman David Schweikert (R-Ariz.): “The Secret Science Reform Act rules 'secret science' a condition of the past. Public policy should come from public data. Unfortunately, for far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country without public evidence to justify all their actions. This common-sense legislation forces the EPA to be transparent and accountable with their findings."

The Secret Science Reform Act requires that the EPA base its regulations on publically available and verifiable information without compromising protections for personal information.

A 2013 poll from the Institute of Energy Researchfound that 90 percent of Americans agree that studies and data used to make federal government decisions should be public. Provisions in the bill are consistent with White House policy, the data access provisions of major scientific journals, and the recommendations of the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Obama administration’s top science advisors. The Chair of EPA’s own Science Advisory Board testified that EPA’s advisors recommend “that literature and data used by EPA be peer-reviewed and made available to the public."

The Secret Science Reform Act affirms laws prohibiting the disclosure of confidential or proprietary information. The Act is not retroactive; it applies only to new, future regulations issued by the agency. The bill forges a new path forward embracing scientific integrity and open government.

Companion legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming.

Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.): “Transparency and accountability should be a priority for every government agency—and the EPA is no exception. After the House passed our bill today, we are one step closer to finally changing the way things are done at the EPA. Since the American people are paying the price for these expensive regulations they deserve to see the science used to justify them."

===

===

an kos 621

Senate Republicans desperately want to tee up some policy-focused jabs at the Biden agenda that can resonate with their base and independents alike ahead of next year's midterms.

But every time they appear in the conservative right-wing echo chamber, hosts quickly redirect the conversation back to some sensational culture war issue to keep their viewers hopped up on rage.

Take Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, who recently went on Newsmax to stoke consternation over President Joe Biden's energy policy, including cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, job losses, and rising gas prices.

But according to the *Washington Post*, within minutes of the 8-minute appearance, Newsmax hosts steered Cramer to more incendiary territory—whether Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was incorporating critical race theory into military training.

Cramer admitted to the Post that Republicans were failing to engage their voters with policy discussions that once resonated and even inflamed their base, like the runaway deficit charge that became a flashpoint for the Tea Party movement. But he also insisted that a discussion around inflation could break through if Americans continued to be impacted by things like rising gas prices at the pumps.

"If there's anything to worry about, it's this sense that something has to happen instantly for it to be effective," Cramer said. "I reject that."

But the problem for Republicans is twofold. First, for four years, Trump juiced up GOP voters on a steady diet of sugary sodas and pop rocks. But now that congressional Republicans are back to pretending to care about substantive policy again, their voters are too addicted to the sugar highs to give a damn about last decade's red meat.

Second, almost all of Biden's agenda is exceedingly more popular than Republicans or, for that matter, the policy they're trying to sell. For instance, a month after Biden signed the American Rescue Plan into law, a Washington Post-ABC poll found that 65% of Americans still supported the $1.9 trillion relief package, while just 31% opposed it.

Biden's American Jobs Plan typically hasn't drawn quite as much support as the relief plan in polling, but in poll after poll people still favor it far more than they oppose it, and the more voters hear about it the more they like it. An April Navigator Research poll of the jobs plan, for instance, found baseline support of 53% for the $2.3 trillion jobs and infrastructure proposal but just 23% opposition to it. And after the plan was described in greater detail to respondents, support shot up to 70%.

As for Republicans, they're a wildly unpopular party pushing wildly unpopular policies to defend their wildly unpopular 2017 tax giveaway to the rich.

Senate Republicans also appear to be a bit out of practice after holding the majority since 2014. Even they eventually came around to the realization that their efforts to combat Biden's coronavirus relief plan was a 100% flop.

Now it's occurring to them that focusing their message 100% on Dr. Seuss and the great Potato Head controversy without incorporating any crossover appeal whatsoever for independent voters isn't exactly a winning strategy for the midterms, particularly in the Senate.

So for now, Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the Senate GOP's No. 3, will keep hosting press conferences with the caucus every Wednesday and Thursday in an effort to drive messages that occasionally manage to veer into policy territory.

McConnell will keep appearing on Fox News to slam Biden's "radical left-wing proposals" only to end up talking about that latest tweets of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

And all Republicans will appeal to the heavens to give them some policy gift such as sustained soaring inflation that might allow them to ween their voters off Trump's steady junk food diet.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Academia: The 'Intellectual Raw Materials' for the EV Fight

The Koch network has spent decades investing in colleges and universities, often times funding faculty positions or free market centers and programs and staffing them with ideologically aligned academics. In recent years, this funding has come under considerable scrutiny, and much has been reported on the strings attached to funding of programs like the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University, and the Department of Economics at Florida State University.

By design, this is an “investment in the intellectual raw materials,” as Fink wrote, “that is, the exploration and production of abstract concepts and theories.”

The abstract nature of such academic exploration makes it a little harder to see the impact of the Koch network’s investments in universities on a single policy issue as discreet as transportation electrification. But not impossible.

...

Indeed, some of the Kochs' chosen academics and Koch-funded centers have spoken publicly to the issue.

One of the most visible academic figures arguing against the federal EV tax credit is Veronique de Rugy, a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center. Last fall, as Congress considered a couple of opposing bills — a bipartisan proposal to extend the tax credit and another to cancel it — de Rugy railed against the tax credit in an op-ed.

It’s worth noting that the bill to eliminate the credit was introduced by :{Senator John Barrasso:(style="background-color:#ffcc66;"):}: of Wyoming, the third largest recipient of Koch Industries donations in the Senate, and that Koch Industries formally lobbied for Barrasso’s bill. De Rugy wrote that “Barrasso's proposal makes the tax code simpler and less distortionary, making it the most economically sound.”

Earlier this year, de Rugy wrote another op-ed bashing the bipartisan support for the federal EV tax credit, and describing the consumer tax incentive as a “corporate handout.”

Another Mercatus Center economist, Matthew Mitchell, publishes frequently on the subjects of government favoritism and privilege, making the popular free-market argument that the government shouldn’t support private industries through fiscal policies like tax preferences, loan guarantees, and direct subsidization.

Curiously, Mitchell never writes of the massive subsidies enjoyed by the mature oil and gas industries, which the U.S. treasury has calculated out to $4.7 billion per year. Nor does he take issue with the more than $500 million that Koch Industries itself — the second largest private company in the U.S. — has benefited from over the past two decades, according to the Subsidy Tracker built by Good Jobs First. Mitchell does, however, use Tesla as a “beautiful illustration of the problem of favoritism and crony capitalism” in a video he narrates for the Federalist Society, and in a number of related articles.

It’s more common for Koch-funded academics to influence the EV policy discussion indirectly, through the “abstract concepts and theories” that Fink described or through other related issues.

The gasoline tax provides a good example. The Koch network opposes any increase to federal or state gas taxes, for obvious reasons — the taxes would make Koch Industries’ refined petroleum products more expensive (and make alternatives like mass transit and electric cars more attractive). However, gas taxes typically fund roads, and gas tax revenues are dwindling as they haven’t kept pace with inflation and cars have gotten far more fuel efficient.

[omg pix:

Koch Student Commons, on the ground floor of the University of Kansas' business school. ]

The Koch network is actively pushing the argument that electric vehicles, which don’t pay a gas tax, are to blame for highway funding shortfalls, despite vast evidence to the contrary. Some states have enacted special EV fees to bolster highway funds, and Senator Barrasso is spearheading an effort to create a new fee at the federal level. This despite a recent report by Consumer Reports which found that the majority of these fees are punitive in that they charge plug-in drivers more than the equivalent that gas-powered cars would generate in gas taxes annually.

Even so, some Koch-funded academics have argued recently against raising gas taxes, while taking shots at electric cars. Writing in the Orange County Register last year, a professor and research fellow from Utah State University’s Koch-funded program claim that “The decline in gas-tax revenue caused by the shift away from internal-combustion engines is stressing the highway trust funds in many states,” adding that some states now “charge special fees for electric-car owners to compensate for the lost revenue.”

Similarly, in a recent op-ed in :{Forbes:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:, Adam Milsap, the associate director of the Koch-funded L. Charles Hilton Jr. Center for the Study of Economic Prosperity and Individual Opportunity at Florida State University, writes that “the gas tax is not the long-term funding answer” for road funds. While Milsap doesn’t promote a fee for EVs, he does portray them as a growing part of the problem. Milsap is, to borrow Mitchell’s phrase, “a perfect illustration” of the Koch-funded higher ed ecosystem.

In a 2014 panel on “Leveraging Science and the Universities” at the Koch Freedom Partners donor summit session, Milsap described how Koch-funded programs — like George Mason University's Mercatus Center and the Institute for Humane Studies — trained him to cultivate a “new talent pipeline” for all levels of the Koch network. He also described how academics should use all “viable mediums,” including “major Republican blogs, op-eds, and policy briefs” to spread ideas to a broader, more popular audience, as he regularly does on Forbes and in other outlets.

Think Tanks: Translating Free Market Ideas to EV Antagonism

Fink described the role of think tanks as translating ideas into actual solutions and policy proposals. Here, at this stage, “ideas are applied to a relevant context and molded into needed solutions for real-world problems.”

The role that think tanks and policy institutions play in fighting against EV-friendly policies cannot be overstated, as they develop and push deceptive talking points about electric cars into the public policy debates, and even produce reports and “studies” that cherry-pick data to promote a burn-more-gas agenda.

As Elliot Negin of the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote, “these think tanks and advocacy groups essentially function as public relations arms for their benefactors, representing their interests under the guise of being neutral, albeit conservative, policy shops.”

Negin references a September 2018 letter, which DeSmog also reported extensively on, that reveals the breadth of the Koch think tank influence in the debate over the federal EV tax credit. The letter, signed by 30 self-described “conservative free-market organizations” — the majority of which have clear ties to Charles Koch and Koch Industries through their funding or leadership — called for Congress to halt the expansion of the EV tax credit, or to eliminate it entirely.

If there is a central hub of the Koch network’s think tank efforts, it appears to be the American Energy Alliance (AEA), which organized the letter to Congress.

The AEA is the advocacy wing of the Institute for Energy Research, both of which receive Koch funding. Both groups are lead by Tom Pyle, who has a long history of working with and for the Koch brothers and Koch Industries. He was the top lobbyist at Koch Industries, and then later as a private lobbyist, he lobbied on behalf of Koch Industries and the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (now theAmerican Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers), of which Koch Industries is a core and influential member.

The AEA has been consistently vocal in its opposition to the electric vehicle tax credit, and in June released a now-annual deceptive push poll that relied on demonstrably false data and leading questions to allege that Americans don't support the tax credit.

Joining Pyle in signing the letter were representatives of another 29 organizations, at least 17 of which have clear, demonstrable ties to the Koch network.

There's the “Action” arm of the Koch-funded corporate bill mill the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative advocacy group dedicated to “economic freedom” that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Texaco, and the family foundations of both Koch brothers.

Then there's American Commitment, run by Phil Kerpen, a former vice president of Americans for Prosperity (founded and funded by the Kochs). And don't forget Less Government, an “organization dedicated to reducing the power of government and protecting the First Amendment from governmental assault,” founded and run by Seton Motley, staunch Koch defender, who is also a policy adviser to the climate science-denying Heartland Institute, which has received millions in grants from Koch family network foundations.

And there's Frontiers of Freedom, run by George Landrith, a group which has received significant funding from Koch network foundations and dark money organizations like DonorsTrust, and which launched an offshoot calledthe Energy Equality Coalition to battle against the federal electric vehicle tax credit.

Besides collaborating on the occasional letter to Congress, representatives from these groups regularly reach out into the public sphere to influence public opinion and bend political will.

When the Energy Equality Coalition launched, one of the group's board members, George Landrith, told The Weekly Standard, “Working-class people are paying taxes to subsidize luxury goods for the richest among us … We believe there should be energy equality, not special treatment for the wealthy.” Landrith’s comment anticipated a talking point that would become a favorite of the Koch network, one that has been repeated dozens, if not hundreds, of times in op-eds and commentaries penned by Koch reps.

Over a two-month span after Senator Barrassointroduced his bill to eliminate the EV tax credit last fall, a flurry of such pieces hit the presses. In December 2018, Jonathan Lesser of the Manhattan Institute (which has received more than $2.6 million from Koch foundations) tried to paint the EV tax credit as “inequitable” in Investors Business Daily.

A couple days later, Landrith argued the same in:{ The Daily Caller:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:. Then came Ross Marchand of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance(at least $1.1 million from Koch groups), bashing the “EV tax credit gravy train,” and Drew Johnson of the National Center for Public Policy Research(at least $1 million from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund) asking readers of the Austin American Statesmen to “Imagine taxing middle-class families to help rich folks buy luxury cars.”

This echo chamber has proven effective.In February 2019, Senator Barrasso himself wrote in a FoxNews op-ed that “Every time one of these cars sells, the U.S. taxpayer must help pay for it,” and also stated inaccurately that “Eight out of 10 electric-car tax credits go to households earning at least $100,000 — buyers who don’t need a subsidy.” Speaking in the Senate, Barrasso repeated that the EV program “disproportionately subsidizes wealthy buyers” and that “hard-working Wyoming taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize wealthy California luxury-car buyers.”

It’s worth noting that this particular talking point is intentionally misleading — leaving out the huge contribution of electric car leases — and is easily debunked. (See our explanation on KochvsClean here, and check out the rest of our EV Facts while you’re there.)

So, where does it come from? That brings us to the other main purpose of the Kochs’ investments in think tanks: producing the raw materials for the disinformation that gets pumped through the conservative echo chamber.

The “eight of out 10” statistic that has been repeated ad nauseum is typically attributed to a report by Wayne Winegarden of the Pacific Research Institute (which has received $1.7 million from Koch foundations). It has been roundly debunked for cherrypicking outdated statistics and ignoring leased vehicles, which play a significant role in the EV market.

Yet the study has been cited in countless articles and op-eds, including those described above and others published in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Examiner, the National Review, and more, as well as inletters to Congressional leaders, including the one described above. Clearly, the Koch network’s investments in the Pacific Research Institute are paying off.

The institute's product is one of a handful of reports and studies that Koch network commentators will regularly cite in their attacks on electric cars. Another comes from the Manhattan Institute, supporting the obviously misleading claims that widespread adoption of electric cars would increase air pollution and have a negligible impact on the global climate. Another, by NERA Economic Consulting, was commissioned by a subsidiary of Koch Industries and is often referenced to support macroeconomic arguments against lifting the EV tax credit's cap.

To review: The Koch network’s massive investment in think tanks and policy institutions not only funds the production of deceptive talking points, but also the voices from seemingly reputable organizations who pump the disinformation through the echo chamber and influence public opinion and shape political will.

The Ground Game: Citizen Activist Organizations and Front Groups

In his magazine article, “Structure of Social Change,” Fink wrote that “Citizen activist or implementation groups are needed in the final stage to take the policy ideas from the think tanks and translate them into proposals that citizens can understand and act upon.”

To this end, the Kochs’ sprawling 501(c)4 advocacy group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a massively influential player, with more than 2.3 million members and operations in 35 states. The national AFP team operates publicly much like the think tanks described above — see, for instance, this op-ed on why “Tesla drivers don’t need taxpayer handouts” by an AFP policy analyst, or the chief government affairs officer’s signature on the EV tax credit letter.

[marco conf]

But at the state level and local level, AFP chapters work more directly to rally voters and pressure elected and appointed policymakers.

As a number of states consider policies and regulations concerning electric vehicles, AFP’s influence is growing. They are even intervening in arcane electric utility regulatory proceedings. As Politico recently reported, AFP’s state chapters have mobilized against utility investments in EV charging infrastructure in Arizona, Illinois, and Iowa.

Various AFP state chapters have also pushed legislators to pass annual EV registration fees, many inspired by a model resolution discussed for years at the Koch-funded and -controlled ALEC meetings. The model resolution that passed at last fall’s ALEC meeting was written and promoted by none other than Tom Pyle of the American Energy Alliance, as revealed in emails obtained by the corporate watchdog Documented, providing yet another example of how the policy influence flows through this multi-tiered Koch network.

In Colorado in 2017, AFP’s state chapter lobbied aggresively for a billthat would end the state’s tax incentive for the purchase of a new electric car. The effort paid off, as the state legislature canceled the tax credit. (Though the victory was short-lived, as the Democrats swept the statewide offices in the 2018 elections and quickly introduced a new tax incentive.)

Colorado, a recent hotbed of EV policy action, hosts more Koch-tied ground game groups than just AFP.

Earlier this year, a group called the Freedom to Drive Coalition launched, using the Koch’s disinformation playbook to oppose efforts by the governor’s office to introduce cleaner air standards and adopt low- and zero-emission vehicle mandates.

As DeSmog reported this summer, the coalition portrays itself as the voice of the Colorado driver, but is run by a handful of Colorado-based public affairs professionals. One of them is Sean Paige, a former director of Americans for Prosperity’s Colorado chapter. The coalition itself includes car dealers and auto groups, some agricultural associations, and the Colorado Petroleum Association.

Notably, the only national member is the American Fuel & Petrochemicals Manufacturers (AFPM), a national trade association representing 98 percent of oil refining capacity in the United States, in which Koch Industries is an influential member. (James Mahoney served as AFPM chairman while he was an executive vice president at Koch Industries, and there has been a perpetual revolving door between the leadership and staff at AFPM, Koch Industries, ALEC, and the Institute for Energy Research.)

Similar efforts are evident on the ground in states across the country, wherever policymakers are considering proposals to help accelerate the transition to electric cars. Other efforts are less evident, but almost certainly underway.

The Koch ground game often runs campaigns through front groups that mask the Big Oil money and present a facade of public and consumer support. (Recall that Americans for Prosperity was once itself a little known political advocacy group masquerading as a decentralized grassroots libertarian movement that helped juice the early Tea Party upwelling.)

The Koch network and Marathon Petroleum were already revealed in a New York Times investigation to be behind a covert effort to bundle public comments in support of a rollback of President Obama's clean car standards, which the Trump administration is on the verge of formalizing. If that roll back survives certain legal challenges — which most legal experts doubt — it would force American drivers to burn an extra 500,000 barrels of gasoline every day, and would disincentivize automakers from producing and selling all-electric models that are currently in development.

While the Koch network's fingerprints on that effort were exposed, there are almost certainly more front groups that haven't yet been tied to Koch funding or coordination.

All told, the Koch network's investments throughout their “structure of social change” give politicians plenty of cover, through disinformation and the veneer of public support, to promote policies that put the brakes on the market for electric vehicles.

Then factor in the considerable cash invested directly in political campaigns by Koch Industries and its subsidiaries, and the dark money that flows from Koch-affiliated PACs, and the campaign-caliber ground game provided before elections by Americans for Prosperity, and the startling volume of voter data they've compiled in their i360 voter files.

That's how you get policymakers to spurn electric cars, instead supporting policies that only benefit the oil industry, at the expense of public health, the climate, and the personal finances of American drivers.

===

Senator John Barrasso and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial board are once again attacking the federal electric vehicle tax credit, and are once again relying on easily debunked talking points born of the Koch network’s influence machine.

Senator Barrasso has reportedly sent a letter to Republican colleagues in the Senate, advising them not to extend the electric vehicle (EV) tax credit.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board cheered Senator Barrasso’s act in an editorial published Tuesday. The deception and falsehoods are so rife in the WSJ editorial that it that begs for rebuttal. So here goes. READ MORE

desmog 919

...Here are some of Wheeler's most controversial decisions as acting-administrator, as cited by the Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups.

In August, he released a proposal rolling back Obama-era vehicle emissions standards and revoking California's waiver under the Clean Air Act to set its own.

Also in August, he unveiled a replacement for former President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan that would increase greenhouse gas emissions and cost more than a thousand lives a year, according to the EPA's own calculations.

In December, Wheelerreleased an attack on the Obama-Era Waters of the U.S. rule that would deny protections to streams that only flow if it rains and wetlands not connected to larger waterways.

Also in December, Wheeler offered a major boon to the coal industry, rolling back another Obama-era rulemeant to limit the emissions of Mercury and other toxins from coal-fired plants, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) pointed out.

Wheeler earned the dubious honor of being only the second nominee for EPA head that the EDF has ever opposed. Pruitt was the first.

[img?] "We evaluate executive appointments with the presumption that every President has a right to name his team unless a nominee would threaten the health and safety of the American people. Unfortunately, Andrew Wheeler's record puts him in that category," EDF President Fred Krupp said in a statement.

Wheeler worked for the EPA in the 1990s before joining the staff of Oklahoma Senator and climate denierJames Inhofe. He then moved to the private sector, where he lobbied for Murray Energy Corp, the nation's most prominent underground mining company, CNBC reported. Wheeler has said he is "not at all ashamed" of his work for Murray.

Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee responsible for taking the initial vote on Wheeler's nomination, said he was excited to get Wheeler appointed.

Barrasso easily bests challenger as Wyo., Alaska hold primaries

E&E Daily: Wednesday, August 22, 2018

:{:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso sailed through his first real primary challenge last night, defeating businessman Dave Dodson 65 to 28 percent in the Wyoming Republican primary.

===

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/7/25/profit_over_grizzlies_trump_admin_tries

Trump administration has announced plans to gut the Endangered Species Act, ordering federal agencies to consider economic impacts before listing animals to be protected under the law. The newly proposed guidelines by the Interior Department would allow corporations involved in mining, drilling or other forms of extraction to proceed with projects that would otherwise be prohibited. The Trump administration’s proposed rules are among several recent attacks endangering the Endangered Species Act. Earlier this month, the Congressional Western Caucus introduced a package of nine bills to “modernize” the ESA. In introducing the legislation, Republican Congressmember Don Young of Alaska said, “The Endangered Species Act has been weaponized and misused by environmental groups for too long.” We speak to Kierán Suckling, executive director and a founder of the Center for Biological Diversity.

---

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The Trump administration has announced plans to gut the Endangered Species Act, ordering federal agencies to consider economic impacts before listing animals to be protected under the law. The newly proposed guidelines by the Interior Department would allow corporations involved in mining, drilling or other forms of extraction to proceed with projects that would otherwise be prohibited.

Republican President Richard Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act in 1973 to provide a framework to conserve and protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats. The Trump administration’s proposed rules are among several recent efforts to weaken the Endangered Species Act.

Earlier this month, the Congressional Western Caucus introduced a package of nine bills to, quote, “modernize” the ESA. In introducing the legislation, Republican Congressman Don Young of Alaska said, quote, “The Endangered Species Act has been weaponized and misused by environmental groups for too long.” Meanwhile, in the Senate, Wyoming Republican John Barrasso, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, also introduced a draft bill to amend the act. This is Barrasso speaking at a hearing last week.

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO: Congress last reauthorized the Endangered Species Act with amendments of substance in 1988, 30 years ago. Even the U.S. Constitution has been amended more recently than the Endangered Species Act. Stakeholders are making it clear that the Endangered Species Act can be improved. A major goal of the Endangered Species Act is the recovery of species to the point that protection under the statute is no longer necessary. Since the ESA was signed into law, only 54 out of 2,393 species listed in the U.S. and foreign countries have been delisted because they have recovered. That’s less than 3 percent. Now, as a doctor, if I admit a hundred patients to the hospital and only three recover enough under my treatment to be discharged, Governor, I would deserve to lose my medical license with numbers like that.

AMY GOODMAN: House Democrats, along with conservationists, managed to get excluded from Congress’s annual defense spending bill policies that would restrict Endangered Species Act protections for certain animals.

For more, we’re joined by Kierán Suckling. He is executive director, a founder of the Center for Biological Diversity, the group that has sued the Trump administration 81 times over the past year and a half.

Kierán, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about what is happening to the Endangered Species Act, 45 years after it was passed and President Nixon signed off on it.

KIERÁN SUCKLING: Yeah, the Trump administration’s proposal to gut the Endangered Species Act is the most comprehensive, devastating attempt to destroy this law we’ve seen in this entire time. And this is after Reagan and after the Bushes. It’s even worse than that. It’s quite extraordinary.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, and specifically, how would the weakening or gutting of the act work, if it went through?

KIERÁN SUCKLING: Well, it will strip protection entirely for about 60 percent of all species on the list. And these are the species that are listed as threatened rather than endangered. Currently, they get essentially the same protection as endangered species. Under the Trump proposal, they would get no protection at all. You could continue to kill them, you could continue to destroy their habitat, as if they were simply not protected.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And how would this issue of taking into account economic impacts work?

KIERÁN SUCKLING: Yeah, this is really disastrous. The Endangered Species Act is incredibly successful because it requires that all decisions be made solely on the best available science—no politics, no economic concerns. The Trump administration now wants to say, when deciding whether a species is endangered—a scientific question—you’re going to have to take into account economic impacts. Well, economic activity—mining, logging, grazing—is the cause of endangerment. And this is the Endangered Species Act, not the Endangered Mining Industry Act. So it really turns the priority of this very successful law entirely upside down.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Richard Nixon, speaking in 1970, when he outlined a sweeping plan to protect the environment. Three years later, he signed the Endangered Species Act.

PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON: The great question of the ’70s is: Shall we surrender to our surroundings, or shall we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, to our land and to our water?

AMY GOODMAN: So that’s Richard Nixon speaking back in the 1970s. I want to go back to Republican Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, speaking at a hearing for a draft bill to amend the Endangered Species Act.

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO: The discussion draft elevates the role of states in partnering with the federal government to implement the Endangered Species Act. It affords states the opportunity to lead wildlife conservation efforts, including to the establishment of recovery teams for listed species and developing and implementing recovery plans. It provides for increased regulatory certainty, so stakeholders are incentivized to enter into voluntary conservation and recovery activities. It increases transparency. It codifies a system for prioritizing species listing petitions so limited resources flow to the species most in need.

AMY GOODMAN: Kierán Suckling, if you can respond to what Republican Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming was saying?

KIERÁN SUCKLING: Yeah, this is really extraordinary, because to get onto the endangered species list, there first has to be a finding that state plans have not worked, that state plans have caused the species to be imperiled. And so, now Barrasso he wants to have the law say, “Oh, well, let’s put the states, whose plans failed, in charge of conserving the species.” How can that make any sense at all?

He wants to do that because he knows the states don’t have the money, the infrastructure, and in places like Idaho, Utah, Alaska, they don’t have the desire to protect these species. It’s the reason they’re endangered in the first place, right? We don’t turn over implementation of our laws to criminals who have just been found guilty of breaking the law. The state can be a partner of the federal government. The federal government needs to set the standards, provide the funds to get the job done that the states fail to do.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Kierán Suckling, why do you—what’s your sense of why the Trump administration is making this such a priority? I mean, President Trump is not exactly known as a guy who has a lot of concern about what’s going on with nature or with the open spaces of America. He’s a real estate developer. So, why do you think he has moved so aggressively on this front?

KIERÁN SUCKLING: Well, he’s being strongly influenced by right-wing Republican congressmen, but especially those from the Western states, where so much logging, mining, grazing, oil drilling, coal mining is taking place on public lands. And there’s this right-wing agenda to allow our public lands to be turned over to industry groups. And these folks, particularly out of Utah, have Trump’s ear, and he’s doing essentially whatever they want to happen.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about, Kierán, what animals have been saved by the Endangered Species Act?

KIERÁN SUCKLING: Oh, you know, there just are hundreds. Of the 1,600 species on the domestic list, about 85 percent of them have improved in their population size since going on the list. So, for example, the bald eagle, when it was first put on the endangered species list, there were just a couple hundred of them. And by the time they were recovered, there were over 8,000. Other species that have been helped are the wolverine up in the northern states; the grizzly bear has recovered tremendously, from on the verge of extinction to many hundreds of them; on the East Coast, we’ve got the Atlantic sturgeon off the coast of New York; or down in Florida, we’ve got the manatee, another incredible success story; green sea turtles on the Texas coast. Really, in every single state in the country, endangered species are thriving because of the work of the federal government, because of the very protections the Trump administration and Barrasso want to kill.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And we talked about what President Trump is directly trying to do. What is Barrasso—in Congress, what are these efforts to amend or modernize the act about?

KIERÁN SUCKLING: Yeah, so, congressional Republicans have introduced over 60 bills in the last two years to gut the Endangered Species Act. And they know what they’re doing. So these bills go right at the key decision junctures in the act that protect species and, in doing so, slow down some industries. And so, they want to make it harder to put a species onto the endangered species list at all, because if you stop that key moment, none of the other things flow from it. They want to allow protected habitat areas to be destroyed, even though they were set up simply to save the species. They want to change the people who create recovery plans for the species, the blueprint of what actions are needed, so that the states and industry groups dominate those plans. They want to make it so that greenhouse gas emissions and global warming cannot be addressed at all, even though they’re driving almost all the species on the list extinct. They want to create loopholes so that oil companies, mining companies, logging companies can continue to implement destructive plans, even though those plans have been specifically found to be driving species extinct.

WOTUS

The Waters of the United States rule, designed to limit pollution in about 60 percent of the nation’s bodies of water, was put forth by the E.P.A. and the Army Corps of Engineers in 2015. It had extended existing federal protections of large bodies of water, such as the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound, to smaller bodies that flow into them, such as rivers, small waterways and wetlands.

Issued under the authority of the 1972 Clean Water Act, the rule has been hailed by environmentalists. But farmers, ranchers and real estate developers oppose it as an infringement on their property rights.

Republicans in farm states cheered the administration’s move on Wednesday.

“The Obama administration’s outrageous Waters of the United States rule would have put backyard ponds, puddles, and farm fields under Washington’s control,” said Senator John Barrasso, the Wyoming Republican who is chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “Today’s action will give Wyoming’s ranchers, farmers, small businesses, and communities clarity.”

===

inhofe rolls on pru

Chair of Senate Environment Panel to Call Scott Pruitt to Testify on Scandals

The Republican chairman of the Senate committee with oversight of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to call the agency's embattled chief Scott Pruitt to testify, specifically in response to multiple scandals and investigations surrounding the administrator.

Through a spokesperson, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., informed Reuters of his decision to compel Pruitt to come before the Environment and Public Works Committee to answer questions about his alleged abuse of his office.

...

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/10/senators-release-draft-of-wildfire-prevention-legislation

PR BS

Senators Release Draft of Wildfire Prevention Legislation

October 23, 2017

The Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 will simplify forest management to help prevent & mitigate wildfires and protect wildlife.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), joined with Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John Thune (R-SD), and Steve Daines (R-MT) to release a staff draft of the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017.

The draft legislation will enhance forest management to more effectively mitigate severity of catastrophic wildfires. The bill will also provide increased protections for wildlife habitat threatened by wildfires.

“In Wyoming, and across the West, catastrophic fires have destroyed people’s homes, devastated wildlife, and claimed lives, ” said Barrasso. “State and local forest managers need the flexibility to remove trees and dead wood that fuel these terrible fires. Our bill will provide commonsense tools and cut unnecessary red tape. We must act quickly to address the risk these fires pose to both people and wildlife.”

"I’m thrilled to see continued progress with this important legislation. Wildfire continues to decimate Western communities, ruining sources of drinking water, destroying property, and even claiming lives,” Hatch said. “I believe this proposal will strengthen the Forest Service’s ability to engage in wildfire prevention, which carries the added benefit of improving wildlife habitat. It is imperative that we to return to a more balanced approach to forest management, not just fire management. I am confident that this bill will help foster safer, healthier forests in Utah and across the West for years to come.”

“After nearly a quarter century of very-limited-to-hands-off forest management, federal forest fire suppression costs have continued to grow,” said Thune. “We must take immediate steps to improve the health of our nation’s forestland and be more aggressive and proactive in forest management. I believe this legislation offers several common-sense solutions that would help solve our problem of declining forest health by allowing land management professionals to use more 21st Century land management techniques. Efficient and effective land management makes forests more resilient and better able to withstand fire, pests, and diseases. This bill, which includes provisions I’ve previously introduced that would greatly expand categorical exclusions and measures to reduce litigation risk, is an important step in the right direction.”

“We have had one of the most devastating fire seasons this year across the West and in Montana,” said Daines. “We need forest management reform now to reduce the severity and intensity of wildfires and create more good-paying jobs.”

Specifically, the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 will:

Statutorily reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's Cottonwood decisions by codifying the position taken by the Obama administration that federal agencies are not required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at a programmatic level when new critical habitat is designated or a new species is listed;

Direct the Department of Interior (DOI) to create a categorical exclusion (CE) for certain sage-grouse and mule deer habitat vegetation projects that address areas affected by the encroachment of invasive pinyon and juniper trees;

Direct the Department of Agriculture to create a CE for immediate action in critical response situations due to disease and insect infestations, threats to watersheds, and other high-risk areas;

Call for streamlined environmental review for ecosystem restoration projects by requiring the U.S. Forest Service to consider only two alternatives during the planning process: an "action" alternative, and a "no action" alternative;

Establish or modify CEs for wildlife habitat improvement, forest thinning, and insect and disease infestation; and

Establish a five-year pilot arbitration process to allow alternative dispute resolution for forest activities that will result in binding decisions not subject to judicial review.

To view full text of the draft legislation, click here.

Background Information:

On September 27, 2017, the EPW committee held a hearing on “Forest Management to Mitigate Wildfires: Legislative Solutions.” The hearing examined three pieces of legislation: S. 605, the Litigation Relief for Forest Management Projects Act; S.1417, the Sage-Grouse and Mule Deer Habitat Conservation and Restoration Act of 201; and S.1731, the Forest Management Improvement Act of 2017.

On October 25, 2017, the EPW Committee is scheduled to hold a legislative hearing on the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017.

===

Congress, Trump Exploit Fire Tragedy to Promote Logging Agenda

By Chad Hanson

In the wake of the October 2017 fires in Northern California, which resulted in the loss of so many lives and homes, people affected by the tragedy are grieving and bewildered. Many people are searching for answers about what caused the fires, and a way forward to prevent similar loss of life and property.

It's frustrating, then, to watch Republican leaders in Congress and the Trump administration politicizing the recent tragedy as they push for a sweeping elimination of environmental laws on our national forests and other federal public lands to increase logging and backcountry fire suppression under the guise of community protection. On Nov. 1, the House voted 232-188 to allow for more "salvage logging" and other forms of tree-cutting on federal properties. According to the Associated Press, House Speaker Paul Ryan said the bill was needed to protect the nation's federal forests "from the kind of devastation that California experienced."

Wrong. Even a cursory examination of the science of forest ecology reveals that this plan would not only destroy vast acreages of public forests, but would also put communities at even greater risk.

The fires that occurred last month in California were in low-elevation foothill ecosystems dominated by oak woodlands and grasslands. The fires were far away from any national forests or other federal public lands. Eviscerating environmental laws on federal forestlands would do nothing whatsoever to help the affected communities now or in the future. Instead, what the tens of millions of Americans living in rural communities within fire-adapted ecosystems really need is for federal and state lawmakers to focus on directly protecting homes and lives from wildland fire.

The science is clear on how best to do this, and it involves a few basic steps. Most important, we need to help homeowners make their homes far more fire-safe. This includes measures such as using fire-resistant roofing and siding, installing rain gutter guards (to prevent flaming embers from landing in a dry bed of pine needles and leaves accumulating in rain gutters); using a fine-wire mesh on exterior vents to prevent embers from floating into interior spaces like attics; and replacing wood decks with fire-resistant composites. Homeowners also need assistance to create "defensible space" within 60 to 100 feet around their homes, which involves removing most small trees and shrubs, removing lower limbs on mature trees, and annually raking up and removing small twigs, needles and leaves from the ground. (Clearing vegetation away from larger distances from homes offers no added benefit for home protection, research shows.)

Further, we need to create an infrastructure to notify communities when wildland fires occur so that people and their animals can evacuate quickly. When these steps are properly implemented, the vast majority of homes can and do survive wildland fire, and lives are saved. Finally, we must focus wildland fire suppression and management activities around homes and communities, rather than in backcountry forests.

But the current leadership in Congress appears more interested in trying to find some kind of cover for allowing for increased logging. The recently passed bill—deceptively named the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, and which was sponsored by one of the biggest recipients of logging-industry campaign contributions in Congress, Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican—would divert more resources away from protecting communities in order to give a windfall to logging corporations.

If the Senate passes this bill and it becomes law, the legislation would eliminate most logging regulations in national forests, and severely curtail public participation in federal forest management decisions, allowing clearcuts thousands of acres in size. What's more, the bill would prohibit federal judges from issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against illegal logging projects on our public lands, which means giant logging projects would be completed before any judge could enforce existing laws.

Unfortunately, Senate passage could happen. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) has introduced S. 2068, the so-called Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act. Similar to HR 2936, this bill would exempt massive logging projects from environmental laws and public participation on our national forests, and would prevent federal judges from being able to enforce environmental laws. Barrasso issued a statement misleadingly claiming that this massive rollback of environmental protections was needed to "remove excess brush" from federal forests.

Environmental leaders in Congress, including Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) who is the Ranking Member on the House Natural Resources Committee, are calling HR 2936 a shameful "giveaway" to the logging industry. "The Americans across the West whose homes burned to the ground this year aren't interested in whether Congress can make timber companies a few extra bucks," Grijalva said.

These logging bills represent both an attack on our public lands and an assault on science. Both pieces of legislation are predicated on a political tale known as the "catastrophic wildfire" narrative, which is a classic example of the politics of fear. The basic premise of this narrative is that wildland fires are "destroying" our forests—and that more intensive and widespread logging will "save" them. But the notion that fire "destroys" forests has been refuted by hundreds of scientists and peer-reviewed scientific studies. The current science tells us, for instance, that even in the same forest types, the forests with the fewest environmental protections and the most logging burn more intensely, not less.

There is now a broad consensus among forest scientists that we have considerably less fire in our forests today compared to the natural levels that occurred prior to fire-suppression policies. And, though it may seem counterintuitive, hundreds of scientific studies have concluded that, in the patches where forest fires burn more intensely and kill most of the trees, the resultant "snag forest habitat" is actually some of the best and most important wildlife habitat in the western U.S.—comparable to old-growth forest in terms of native biodiversity and wildlife abundance.

We also need our public forests to help mitigate climate change, since protected forests absorb huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in growing trees and shrubs. In fact, if we protected our national forests from logging, it would be like taking 13 to 24 million cars off the road.

But the Trump administration and its allies in Congress don't really care about science. They live in a world of "alternative facts" in which clearcuts the size of cities are promoted as fire management, ecological restoration, and climate-resilience measures. Their proposed solution to the risks of wildfire is to destroy the forest in order to save it.

Reposted with permission from our media associate SIERRA magazine.

Here's Who's Getting Paid to Destroy the Endangered Species Act

By Rebecca Bowe

A small yet vocal group of congressmen are gearing up this summer to dismantle the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Campaign finance records of these lawmakers reveal that they have all taken significant money from extractive industries frustrated by the law's protection of critical habitat for endangered species.

The ESA has proven to be a powerful, effective conservation safeguard. More than 99 percent of species that have been designated for federal protection continue to exist in the wild today, including the bald eagle, grizzly bear, the leatherback sea turtle and the Florida manatee.

But the work of the ESA has only grown more urgent as many scientists agree that the planet is either on the cusp of or already experiencing a sixth mass wave of extinction. A study last week by Stanford scientists foundthat a significant number of plant and wildlife populations are growing dangerously thin.

Earthjustice is working with coalition partners to oppose efforts on Capitol Hill to weaken protections for endangered species. The public can also make a difference in this fight—despite the big money from fossil fuel industries funding opponents of the ESA—by contacting their Congressional offices (use this call-in tool to be directly connected).

The Anti-ESA Effort and the Money Behind It

The assault on the ESA comes in the form of dozens of legislative proposals and amendments tacked onto spending bills. One bill that's expected to be introduced in a matter of weeks is the handiwork of Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

A Republican from Wyoming, Barrasso shares something in common with other politicians who have made it a legislative priority to weaken or undermine this conservation law. He's received substantial campaign contributions from extractive industries that wish to exploit public lands for mining, drilling and other environmentally destructive operations. Across the American West, for instance, the fossil fuel industry is often pitted against conservationists because habitat for the imperiled sage grouse overlaps with lands eyed by industry for mining or drilling.

According to campaign finance records, from 2011 until 2016, Barrasso received $458,466 in total campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, plus $241,706 from the mining industry. The boost got him a good part of the way toward the $3.66 million he reportedly spent in that time. The Murray Energy Corporation, the nation's largest coal-mining company, was listed as a top donor.

Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who also serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has also garnered substantial support from the fossil fuel industry, collecting $465,950 from the oil and gas industry and $111,275 from the mining industry in campaign donations from 2011 to 2016. Inhofe, who does not believe in climate change, recently went on national television and answered a question about U.S. Environmental Protection Agency budget cuts by suggesting that that the EPA is "brainwashing our kids."

Rep. Rob Bishop, a Republican congressman from Utah who has gone on the record saying he'd like to "repeal and replace" the Endangered Species Act, received $150,516 in total campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry in the 2015-16 cycle alone.

How You Can Help Protect Wildlife

Battles to protect wildlife are intensifying in the face of attacks from these and other lawmakers. However, they may be in for a bigger fight than they realize. A recent poll showed that 90 percent of voters across all demographics were supportive of the ESA.

Join the movement to defend the wild. Call today and tell your senators to stand strong in defense of imperiled wildlife and the lands and waters that sustain them!

===

see National Governors Association

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24022017/endangered-species-act-governors-california

Nearly 300 environmental and social justice groups are calling on the nation's governors to oppose attempts to amend the Endangered Species Act, trying to head off what appears to be shaping up as a series of attacks against the landmark law.

Ina letter sent to the National Governors Association on Thursday, the organizations warned the group against endorsing any rewrite of the act during the governors' annual meeting this weekend.

"In the current political environment," the organizations wrote, "any effort to open up the law would likely weaken, if not cripple, its ability to conserve and recover our nation's most imperiled plants and animals."

The advocacy organizations said they expect an attempt this weekend by the Western Governors Association (WGA) to have the national group join its campaign for reforming the law.

The National Governors Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last year, the WGAadopted a resolution calling on Congress to amend the Endangered Species Act by setting clear criteria for removing recovered species, increasing regulatory flexibility and expanding the role of state governments. The resolution also said using climate change as a factor for listing species as endangered makes it difficult to create a timeline for recovery or a management plan. It said the act "may not be equipped to address this potential global threat to species and habitat."

Republicans in Congress, led by members from Western states, have said they intend to amend or repeal the law because it does not help species recover fast enough.

The WGA's executive director, Jim Ogsbury,testified last week at a Senate hearing on "modernizing" the act, telling lawmakers that it is "premised on a strong state-federal partnership. Western Governors submit that such cooperation should involve full and authentic partnership between the states and Services with respect to species listing, critical habitat designations, establishment of recovery goals and delisting decisions."

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which held the hearing, said the act should be amended to improve recovery rates and de-listings.

But the organizations behind Thursday's letter to governors, including the Center for Biological Diversity and the Humane Society, said those arguments are specious attempts to gut the act. Their letter issues a forceful defense of the law, saying it has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the species listed. They argue that recoveries take decades, while the law was adopted only 44 years ago. More than 700 species, or nearly half those listed, have been protected for fewer than 20 years, according to the letter.

...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2012

S.2012 - Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016

114th Congress (2015-2016) | Get alerts

BILLHide Overview icon-hide

Sponsor: Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK] (Introduced 09/09/2015)

Committees: Senate - Energy and Natural Resources

Committee Reports: S. Rept. 114-138

Latest Action: 04/21/2016 Held at the desk. (All Actions)

Major Recorded Votes: 04/20/2016 : Passed Senate

no co?

The procedural agreement senators unanimously backed on Wednesday clears the way for a bushel of less-contentious amendment votes and final passage of the underlying bill, S. 2012, which aims to promote energy efficiency, bolster infrastructure, and streamline liquefied natural gas exports, among other provisions. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Harry Reid still need to get together to schedule the actual votes. Those are expected next week, which is shaping up to be a busy one for ME and you, with the energy and water appropriations bill also expected to hit the Senate floor.

What’s getting a vote: The agreement sets up 29 noncontroversial amendments to be attached via voice vote as well as eight roll-call votes on standalone amendments. It largely mirrors an earlier proposal, aside from the absence of Flint and offshore drilling measures, and a few other modifications. For example, Murkowski and ENR Ranking Member Maria Cantwell modified the natural resources title they are offering among the roll-call amendments.

Two new amendments are on the list to replace offshore drilling measures: a proposal from Sen. Tom Udall to direct the government to design a program to sell up to $50 billion worth of “Clean Energy Victory Bonds” to fund renewables, efficiency and related projects; and Sen. Rand Paul’s “Economic Freedom Zones” amendment, which would provide tax and regulatory relief to businesses that invest in designated areas.

Next stop: Assuming the bill passes, it will be up to Senate energy leaders to get together with their House counterparts to reconcile differences with H.R. 8, the energy bill that passed the lower chamber on a mostly party-line vote last year. Recall that the White House waved its veto pen at the House bill while taking a more measured view of the Senate version.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/04/morningenergy-wolff-213760#ixzz46ffo6Ink

Read more: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/04/morningenergy-wolff-213760#ixzz46fe2rQAs

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/21/senator-john-barrasso-climate-change-boondoggle-hits-wall.html?intcmp=trending

palestine bs

===

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/cia-closing-its-main-climate-research-program

On Wednesday, when President Barack Obama spoke at the US Coast Guard Academy's commencement ceremony, he called climate change "an immediate risk to our national security." In recent months, the Obama administration has repeatedly highlighted the international threats posed by global warming and has emphasized the need for the country's national security agencies to study and confront the issue.

So some national security experts were surprised to learn that an important component of that effort has been ended. A CIA spokesperson confirmed to Climate Desk that the agency is shuttering its main climate research program. Under the program, known as Medea, the CIA had allowed civilian scientists to access classified data—such as ocean temperature and tidal readings gathered by Navy submarines and topography data collected by spy satellites—in an effort to glean insights about how global warming could create security threats around the world. In theory, the program benefited both sides: Scientists could study environmental data that was much higher-resolution than they would normally have access to, and the CIA received research insights about climate-related threats.

But now, the program has come to a close.

"Under the Medea program to examine the implications of climate change, CIA participated in various projects," a CIA spokesperson explained in a statement. "These projects have been completed and CIA will employ these research results and engage external experts as it continues to evaluate the national security implications of climate change."

"There's a growing gap between what we can currently get our hands on, and what we need to respond better," said security expert Marc Levy.

The program was originally launched in 1992 during the George H.W. Bush administration and was later shut down during President George W. Bush's term. It was re-launched under the Obama administration in 2010, with the aim of providing security clearances to roughly 60 climate scientists. Those scientists were given access to classified information that could be useful for researching global warming and tracking environmental changes that could have national security implications. Data gathered by the military and intelligence agencies is often of much higher quality than what civilian scientists normally work with.

In some cases, that data could then be declassified and published, although Francesco Femia, co-director of the Center for Climate and Security, said it is usually impossible to know whether any particular study includes data from Medea. "You wouldn't see [Medea] referenced anywhere" in a peer-reviewed paper, he said. But he pointed to the CIA's annual Worldwide Threat Assessment, which includes multiple references to climate change, as a probable Medea product, where the CIA likely partnered with civilian scientists to analyze classified data.

With the closure of the program, it remains unclear how much of this sort of data will remain off-limits to climate scientists. The CIA did not respond to questions about what is currently being done with the data that would have been available under the program.

Marc Levy, a Columbia University political scientist, said he was surprised to learn that Medea had been shut down. "The climate problems are getting worse in a way that our data systems are not equipped to handle," said Levy, who was not a participant in the CIA program but has worked closely with the US intelligence community on climate issues since the 1990s. "There's a growing gap between what we can currently get our hands on, and what we need to respond better. So that's inconsistent with the idea that Medea has run out of useful things to do."

The program had some notable successes. During the Clinton administration, Levy said, it gave researchers access to classified data on sea ice measurements taken by submarines, an invaluable resource for scientists studying climate change at the poles. And last fall, NASA released a trove of high-resolution satellite elevation maps that can be used to project the impacts of flooding. But Levy said the Defense Department possesses even higher-quality satellite maps that have not been released.

Still, it's possible Medea had outlived its useful life, said Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a 23-year veteran of the CIA who had first-hand knowledge of the program before leaving the agency in 2009. He said he was not surprised to see Medea close down.

"In my judgment, the CIA is not the best lead agency for the issue; the agency's 'in-box' is already overflowing with today's threats and challenges," he said via email. "CIA has little strategic planning reserves, relatively speaking, and its overseas presence is heavily action-oriented."

Sen. John Barrasso said the CIA "should be focused on monitoring terrorists in caves, not polar bears on icebergs."

Over the past several years, climate change has gained prominence among defense experts, many of whom see it as a "threat multiplier" that can exacerbate crises such as infectious disease and terrorism. Medea had been part of a larger network of climate-related initiatives across the national security community. Medea's closure notwithstanding, that network appears to be growing. Last fall, Obama issued an executive order calling on federal agencies to collaborate on developing and sharing climate data and making it accessible to the public.

But the CIA's work on climate change has drawn heavy fire from a group of congressional Republicans led by Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.). Barrasso said last year that he believes that "the climate is constantly changing" and that "the role human activity plays is not known." He recently authored an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in which he listed the conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere as "greater challenges" than climate change. (The Syrian civil war, however, was likely worsened by climate change.)

Around the time Medea was re-instated by the Obama administration, the CIA formed a new office to oversee climate efforts called the Center for Climate Change. At the time, Barrasso said the spy agency "should be focused on monitoring terrorists in caves, not polar bears on icebergs." That office was closed in 2012 (the agency wouldn't say why), leaving Medea as the CIA's main climate research program.

So does the conclusion of Medea signal that the CIA is throwing in the towel on climate altogether? Unlikely, according to Femia. At this point, he said, US security agencies, including the CIA, are still sorting out what resources they can best offer in the effort to adapt to climate change. Regardless of whether the CIA is facilitating civilian research, he said, "continuing to integrate climate change information into its assessments of both unstable and stable regions of the world will be critical."

"Otherwise," added Femia, "we will have a blind spot that prevents us from adequately protecting the United States."

Sen. John Barrasso, of Wyoming, was also supposed to be on Inhofe’s “Truth Squad,” but he too wound up sitting it out. He has said of Inhofe that “legislatively we’re on the same page.” What’s on that page? In 2011 Barrasso introduced sweeping legislation that would have stopped the EPA from regulating carbon emissions without authorization form Congress, reversed the EPA’s findings that carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses are harmful to the environment, and prevented the federal government from employing a number of federal laws that are intended to deal with global warming. “Washington agencies are now trying a backdoor approach to regulate our climate by abusing existing laws,” he said at the time.

4/15

A Senate committee has advanced legislation that would change how the Environmental Protection Agency uses science to craft regulations intended to protect the environment and public health, the Hill reported Tuesday.

On party line votes, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11-9 to approve the “Secret Science Reform Act,” a bill to prohibit the EPA from using science that includes private data, or data that can’t be easily reproduced. The bill has been pushed strongly by House Republicans for the last two years, but this is the first time it has been advanced by the Senate.It is sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY).

The purpose of the Secret Science bill, according to its House sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), is to stop “hidden and flawed” science from being the basis of EPA regulations. However, many scientific organizations have disagreed with this characterization.

For example, approximately 50 scientific societies and universities said the bill would prohibit the EPA from using many large-scale public health studies, because their data “could not realistically be reproduced.” In addition, many studies use private medical data, trade secrets, and industry data that cannot legally be made public.

“The legislation may sound reasonable, but it’s actually a cynical attack on the EPA’s ability to do its job,” said Andrew Rosenberg, the director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement. “This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that can’t and shouldn’t be revealed.”

Republicans in support of the bill have countered that the EPA could still use data within the studies without disclosing personal information or trade secrets. But it wouldn’t be cheap for those studies to meet the bill’s requirements, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO reported last year that the EPA relies on approximately 50,000 scientific studies to craft its regulations per year, and that meeting the goals of the “Secret Science” bill would cost between $10,000 and $30,000 per study.

When the legislation was moving through the House, Democratic opponents called itdisingenuous — a perceived play for “transparency” within the EPA, when all Republicans really want is less EPA regulation. Environmentally-minded Senators on Tuesday seemed to agree. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) told the Hill that the bill was “just a joke,” while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — who is expected to announce a Presidential bid on Thursday — reportedly called it “laughable.”

For its part, the White House has already threatened to veto the bill if it does come to President Obama’s desk. Obama made the same threat last year when the House passed a similar bill, but the legislation did not reach the then-Democrat controlled Senate.

Now, a notoriously anti-EPA Republican leading the Senate makes it all the more likely that Obama will have to use his veto pen on the Secret Science Reform Act. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said his top priority is “to try to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in.”

Tags:

Green groups, liberal Democrats and public health organizations have applauded the EPA’s efforts. They say the agency’s actions have helped clean up the air and water, in turn, slowing the effects of climate change and improving people’s health.

McCarthy fired back at critics in the video and exhorted her employees to buckle down for the fight.

“This agency has the courage to act. We can make it happen — but we need all hands on deck,” she said.

The agency figures to remain in the crosshairs of Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Sen. John Barrasso(R-Wyo.) is pushing legislation to handicap the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. And Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who heads an Appropriations subcommittee, has promised to make the House EPA spending bill a "battleground" for the administration's climate agenda.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/312561-new-epa-chief-to-staff-this-is-a-defining-time-for-epa#ixzz2a4lj5RRz

===

By Valerie Volcovici

WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama made a plea this week for the U.S. Senate to confirm his choice to head the agency that will oversee the core of his new climate change plan, but nominee Gina McCarthy's prospects seem increasingly in doubt.

McCarthy was nominated by Obama in March to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency where she is currently the top air quality official.

She has yet to receive a vote in the full U.S. Senate after narrowly being approved by the Senate Committee for the Environment and Public Works on a party-line vote.

In his speech Tuesday laying out a climate action plan, Obama said McCarthy was well qualified for the job and has bipartisan credentials. The Senate should confirm her "without any further obstruction or delay," Obama said.

McCarthy has worked for several Republican governors, including 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. She was seen by many as a choice that could work with lawmakers from both parties.

But many Republicans are bitterly against proposed new regulations from the EPA on coal-fired power plants and could seek to block McCarthy's confirmation.

"Sad to say, but I think (Obama) may have effectively sacrificed her confirmation," said Manik Roy, vice president for strategic outreach for the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

McCarthy has received public support from industry representatives and environmental groups alike for her ability to navigate political divisions.

Roy and other analysts have said opposition to her confirmation has less to do with her and more to do with ideological opposition to regulation.

Republican Senator Roy Blount maintains a hold on her nomination over a river project in his state, while members of the Senate environmental committee continue to press McCarthy and the EPA over the transparency of the agency's emails and the economic analysis that goes into its rulemaking.

Reaction by some Senate Republicans to Obama's climate plan signal a tough fight for McCarthy.

Republican Senator John Barrasso said regulations targeting coal-powered plants will strangle the economy. And he suggested McCarthy had lied when asked at her confirmation hearing in April about the agency's plans to regulate existing power plants.

"The agency is not currently developing any existing source greenhouse gas regulations for power plants," McCarthy told the panel.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Barrasso said, "She has recently reported to the Senate that the things the president is talking about today are things she has known nothing about. So either she was ignorant about what's going on at EPA, a place where she's been an assistant director for the last four years, or she is arrogant.

"Either way, I think this tarnishes her chances of being approved by the Senate, tarnishes her nomination."

Senator Barbara Boxer, the Democrat who chairs the environment panel, told reporters last week that she will lead a public campaign for McCarthy.

Roy said that even if the current acting administrator, Bob Perciasepe, stays on in his role, McCarthy will be able to take the lead on Obama's climate agenda.

Allison Macfarlane, another member of Obama's energy team, was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday to a full term as chairwoman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which she has led since July 2012. (Additional reporting by Douwe Miedema, Editing by Ros Krasny and Eric Walsh)

===

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/most-conservative-members-of-congress-20110224?print=true

overview: http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/heads-in-the-sand-20111201?print=true

Heads in the Sand

As climate-change science moves in one direction, Republicans in Congress are moving in another. Why?

by Coral Davenport

Updated: December 2, 2011 | 10:37 a.m.

December 1, 2011 | 3:00 p.m.

Warning: “Climate change is occurring … and poses significant risks to humans and the environment,” reports the National Academy of Sciences.

Sen. John Barrasso is no stranger to science. The Wyoming Republican is an orthopedic surgeon who earned his medical degree from Georgetown University. His rigorous intellect won him Washingtonian magazine’s designation last year as the “brainiest senator,” based on an anonymous survey of Capitol Hill staffers.

Which is why Barrasso’s reaction when a reporter recently asked his views on climate change was so telling. On his way to the weekly Senate GOP luncheon in the Capitol building, Barrasso paused in an empty hallway to chat. When a reporter said, “Senator, can I ask you a question about climate change?” he fell silent and his eyes narrowed. “I’m busy,” he snapped, before turning sharply and striding away

Two days later, the reporter tried again. Approached in the Capitol, Barrasso smiled and appeared poised to answer questions, inviting the reporter into an elevator with him. As the door slid shut, the reporter asked, “Do you believe that climate change is causing the Earth to warm?” A long silence ensued. The senator eventually let out a slow laugh and said, “This isn’t the time to have that conversation.” As soon as the elevator opened, he clapped his phone to his ear and walked briskly toward the Capitol subway.

It’s not surprising that Barrasso avoids talking about climate change. He’s smart and has a background in science, but he also represents the country’s top coal-mining state—and scientific studies show that coal pollution is one of the primary causes of climate change. Any policy to curb climate change would likely hurt Wyoming’s economy.

Democrats in the same position, such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, have long been open about this conundrum—the need to address the crisis that climate science says is coming while somehow saving the jobs that could be lost in the fossil-fuel industry. Coal-state Democrats don’t necessarily have a solution; plenty of them clam up when asked about controversial proposals such as cap-and-trade and pollution regulations. But it’s rare to find a Democrat who denies outright the overwhelming scientific consensus that carbon emissions from oil, coal, and gas—also known as greenhouse gases—are causing the world’s climate to warm.

John Antony Barrasso, a Republican, has been the junior senator from Wyoming since 2007. (map) He was chosen on June 22, 2007 by Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal to replace Sen. Craig Thomas, who had recently died of leukemia. Barrasso's appointment was temporary until a special election for the seat was held in 2008 which Barrasso then won. The election was to fill the remaining four years of Mr. Thomas's term.^[1][2]

Contents[hide]

Record and controversies

General information about important bills and votes for can be found in Congresspedia's articles on legislation. You can add information you find on how John Barrasso voted by clicking the "[edit]" link to the right and typing it in. Remember to cite your sources!

Iraq War

For more information see the chart of U.S. Senate votes on the Iraq War.

Environmental record

For more information on environmental legislation, see the Energy and Environment Policy Portal

Oil record

John Barrasso has voted in favor of big oil companies on 100% of important oil related bills,according to Oil Change International. These bills includeIraq War funding, climate change studies, clean energy, and oil import reductions.^[3]See below for oil and coal money in politics.

Political views

Barrasso is considered a "conservative" and is "pro-life," although he has changed his position on this issue. He previously ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for the Senate in 1996 for the seat vacated by the moderate Alan Simpson of Cody, an abortion-rights supporter. In 1996, Barrasso characterized himself as "pro-choice." He lost the primary to anti-abortion advocate Mike Enzi. While in the the State Senate, he received an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association.

In his application to fill Thomas' seat in 2007, Barrasso expressed that he would be a conservative voice in Washington. He wrote, "I believe in limited government, lower taxes, less spending, traditional family values, local control and a strong national defense." He said he has "voted for prayer in schools, against gay marriage and [has] sponsored legislation to protect the sanctity of life."^[4]

Bio

Barrasso graduated from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. with a bachelor of science degree in 1974. He received hismedical degree from Georgetown in 1978. He conducted his residency at Yale Medical School in New Haven, Connecticut.

In addition to a private practice, he served as chief of staff of the Wyoming Medical Center, state president of the Wyoming Medical Society, president of the National Association of Physician Broadcasters, and a member of the American Medical Association Council of Ethics and Judicial Affairs.

He also served as a member of the board of directors of "Presidential Classroom," a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that brings young people to Washington to learn about their national government. Barrasso was also a member of the Casper Chamber of Commerce and the Casper Rotary Club.

Barrasso was elected to the Wyoming State Senate in 2002 and re-elected in 2006.

In the State Senate, he served on the following committees:

Labor, Health and Social Services Committee
Select Committee on Legislative Technology
Department of Health Advisory Council
NCSL - Labor and Workforce Development
NCSL - Transportation
CSG West - Trade & Transportation
Chairman: Transportation, Highways and Military Affairs

Speculation that occurred about 2008 special election

After Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D) appointed Barrasso over former state Treasurer Cynthia Lummis (R) and one-time Craig Thomas Chief of Staff Tom Sansonetti, a former state GOP chairman, many Wyoming Republicans geared for the possibility of challenging Barrasso in the 2008 special election. In his application for the Senate seat, Barrasso already expressed his intention to seek the final four years of Thomas' term. Ambitious Wyoming Republicans were refusing to rule out challenging either him or Rep. Barbara Cubin in next year's GOP primaries.

Matt Mead (R), a U.S. attorney who resigned so he could apply for the Senate vacancy, commented "I haven’t ruled anything out yet," hinting that he may make a bid for Barrasso's seat. Mead's grandfather, Clifford Hansen, served the state as governor and Senator.

State Rep. Colin Simpson (R), the Majority Floor Leader of the Wyoming House of Representatives and the son former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), also declined to rule out running for federal office in 2008, even if that means challenging Barrasso or Cubin in a primary.

Cynthia Lummis, one of the choices for Thomas' seat, said in an interview that she would not run against Cubin in a primary, citing her status as a sitting Republican officeholder, but she said she was contemplating a bid against Barrasso because she did not view him as a traditional incumbent. "That is an interim appointment, so that is a different circumstance," she commented.

Democrats also considered running for the seat, as Barrasso would only have served 18 months Election Day 2008. State Sen. Mike Massie, 2002 gubernatorial candidate Paul Hickey and former state Rep. Patrick Hacker all considered a bid. Barrasso faced and defeated Democrat Nick Carter for the senate seat in the 2008 election.^[5][2]

Money in politics

Oil and coal money in politics

John Barrasso has received $136,400 in oil contributions during the 110th congress. $110,500 of those dollars were from industry PACS.^[6] These numbers make Barrasso one of the top recipients of oil and coal money in the Senate. In addition to oil money, Barrasso has accepted $82,250 in coal contributions during the 110th congress. $70,000 of those dollars were from industry PACS ^[7]. See above for oil and energy voting record.

Berkshire Hathaway	$41,800	$18,300	$23,500
Chevron Corp	$36,750	$16,750	$20,000
Blue Cross/Blue Shield	$31,500	$2,000	$29,500
Apollo Advisors	$30,500	$30,500	$0
Koch Industries	$24,900	$4,900	$20,000
Exxon Mobil	$24,750	$7,750	$17,000
Wells Fargo	$24,000	$8,000	$16,000
Alpha Natural Resources	$23,950	$17,450	$6,500
College of American Pathologists	$23,000	$0	$23,000
Mewbourne Oil Co	$22,466	$22,466	$0
Anadarko Petroleum	$22,250	$2,250	$20,000
American Assn of Orthopaedic Surgeons	$21,000	$1,000	$20,000
Arch Coal	$21,000	$1,000	$20,000
Marathon Oil	$21,000	$5,000	$16,000
National Beer Wholesalers Assn	$21,000	$1,000	$20,000
New York Life Insurance	$21,000	$1,000	$20,000
Foundation Coal	$20,350	$10,350	$10,000
WPP Group	$20,250	$17,250	$3,000
American Hospital Assn	$20,200	$1,200	$19,000
American Academy of Ophthalmology	$20,000	$0	$20,000
American Bankers Assn	$20,000	$500	$19,500
American Crystal Sugar	$20,000	$0	$20,000
Bluegrass Cmte	$20,000	$0	$20,000
Cablevision Systems	$20,000	$10,000	$10,000
Defend America PAC	$20,000	$0	$20,000
Freedom Fund	$20,000	$0	$20,000
Fund for a Conservative Future	$20,000	$0	$20,000
Honeywell International	$20,000	$0	$20,000
National Assn of Convenience Stores	$20,000	$0	$20,000
National Auto Dealers Assn	$20,000	$0	$20,000
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn	$20,000	$0	$20,000
National Mining Assn	$20,000	$0	$20,000
Natl Assn/Insurance & Financial Advisors	$20,000	$0	$20,000
Next Century Fund	$20,000	$0	$20,000
OrrinPAC	$20,000	$0	$20,000
PricewaterhouseCoopers	$20,000	$0	$20,000
Senate Majority Fund	$20,000	$0	$20,000
Senate Victory Fund	$20,000	$0	$20,000
Tenn PAC	$20,000	$0	$20,000

---

opensecrets

Health Professionals	$935,401
Oil & Gas	$513,616
Leadership PACs	$460,228
Electric Utilities	$272,800
Lobbyists	$266,384
Securities & Investment	$252,981
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$233,389
Mining	$223,781
Insurance	$206,289
Retired	$197,161
TV/Movies/Music	$148,200
Lawyers/Law Firms	$129,256
Real Estate	$128,950
Commercial Banks	$110,933
Retail Sales	$110,450
Pro-Israel	$102,550
Hospitals/Nursing Homes	$100,600
Accountants	$95,358
Misc Finance	$85,032
Health Services/HMOs	$81,383

Sector Totals

Sector	Total	PACs	Indivs
Agribusiness	$167,150	$119,000	$48,150
Communications/Electronics	$266,550	$176,000	$90,550
Construction	$192,416	$126,250	$66,166
Defense	$76,500	$66,000	$10,500
Energy & Natural Resources	$1,108,197	$749,900	$358,297
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate	$898,043	$469,304	$428,739
Health	$1,353,273	$691,088	$662,185
Lawyers & Lobbyists	$395,640	$73,125	$322,515
Transportation	$234,651	$183,749	$50,902
Misc Business	$573,609	$332,998	$240,611
Labor	$32,500	$32,500	$0
Ideological/Single-Issue	$659,983	$547,174	$112,809
Other	$258,311	$3,500	$254,811

===

Committees and affiliations

More background data

Contact

DC Office:

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Phone: 202-224-6441

Fax: 202-224-1724

Email: Senator_JBarrasso@barrasso.senate.gov

Website

Casper Office:

100 East B Street, Suite 2201

Casper, Wyoming 82602

Phone: (307) 261-6413

Fax: (307) 265-6706

Cheyenne Office:

2120 Capitol Avenue, Suite 2013

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

Phone: (307) 772-2451

Fax: (307) 638-3512

Articles and resources

References

↑ Bob Moen, "Wyoming governor appoints GOP state Sen. John Barrasso to replace late U.S. Sen. Craig Thomas," Associated Press, (via Union Tribute). June 22, 2007.
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 2008 Wyoming Election Results, The New York Times, accessed January 2011.
↑ Vote Tracker
↑ Bob Moen. "Wyoming governor appoints GOP state Sen. John Barrasso to replace late U.S. Sen. Craig Thomas," Associated Press, (via Union Tribute). June 22, 2007.
↑ David M. Drucker. "Wyoming Political Scene Still Unsettled," Roll Call. June 27, 2007.
↑ Follow the Oil Money-Senate
↑ Vote Tracker

Wikipedia also has an article on John Barrasso. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL.

External resources

External articles

---

John Barrasso

[[Image:barrasso.jpg|thumb|John Barrasso currently serves as the Jr. Senator for Wyoming]] ...22-1123-wyomingsenator.html "Wyoming governor appoints GOP state Sen. John Barrasso to replace late U.S. Sen. Craig Thomas,"] ''Associated Press'', (via ''Unio

12 KB (1,733 words) - 11:05, 8 January 2011

John A. Barrasso

#REDIRECT [[John Barrasso]]

27 B (3 words) - 01:57, 17 March 2009

Page text matches

Craig Thomas

...ted deputy director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state Sen. John Barrasso, state Sen. Cale Case, attorney Bruce Asay, and retired Navy Capt. Bill Win * State Senator John Barrasso

9 KB (1,308 words) - 01:17, 12 February 2009

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

*[[John Barrasso]] (Wyo.) *[[John Barrasso]] (Wyo.)

7 KB (845 words) - 16:04, 29 January 2009

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

*[[John Barrasso]] (Wyo.) *[[John Barrasso]] (Wyo.)

10 KB (1,204 words) - 15:24, 29 January 2009

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

*[[John Barrasso]] (Wyo.) *[[John Barrasso]] (WY)

12 KB (1,401 words) - 21:51, 20 February 2009

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs

*[[John Barrasso]], Wyoming, '''Ranking Member''' *[[John Barrasso]], Wyoming

3 KB (430 words) - 14:08, 25 August 2009

Barrasso, J Sen 8% 1.2m$

ExxonMobil’s Echo Chamber

ExxonMobil Spreads its Money Around

Inhofe Upstaged

House Passes Bill to Usher in New Era of EPA Transparency

Academia: The 'Intellectual Raw Materials' for the EV Fight

Think Tanks: Translating Free Market Ideas to EV Antagonism

The Ground Game: Citizen Activist Organizations and Front Groups

Barrasso easily bests challenger as Wyo., Alaska hold primaries

Transcript

Chair of Senate Environment Panel to Call Scott Pruitt to Testify on Scandals

Senators Release Draft of Wildfire Prevention Legislation

October 23, 2017

Congress, Trump Exploit Fire Tragedy to Promote Logging Agenda

Here's Who's Getting Paid to Destroy the Endangered Species Act

===

Tags:

Record and controversies

Iraq War

Environmental record

Oil record

Political views

Bio

Speculation that occurred about 2008 special election

Money in politics

Oil and coal money in politics

Sector Totals

Committees and affiliations

More background data

Contact

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

External resources

External articles

Page text matches

Attachments