Inst for 21st Century Energy

==

<div></div><div>ucs negin 10 21</div><div>
</div><div>...The U.S. Chamber of Commerce</div>Since 2014, ExxonMobil has given more than <a href="https://ucs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/global-warming/ExxonMobil-grants-2020.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">$5 million</a> on top of its annual dues to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—a <a href="https://tinyurl.com/7bea47f6" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">major player</a> in blocking action on climate change for decades. A few years after becoming an ExxonMobil grantee, the Chamber gained some unwanted notoriety by financing a <a href="https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/donald-trump-climate-accord-fact-check" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">widely</a> debunked <a href="https://tinyurl.com/y68ty5g7" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">report</a> that then-President Trump cited as a <a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">primary rationale</a> for pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement. NERA<div class="proper-ad-unit postContent11" style="margin: auto; position: relative; width: 654.938px; min-width: 100px; text-align: center; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box !important;"><div id="proper-ad-alternet_content_2" style="position: relative; margin: auto; box-sizing: border-box !important;" /></div>In 2019, however, the Chamber appeared to flip 180 degrees, <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/addressing-climate-change" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">declaring</a> on its website, "Our climate is changing and humans are contributing to these changes. Inaction is simply not an option." The assertion that human activity is merely contributing to climate change is <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/5-flags-to-watch-for-the-day-after-the-olympics-end-ipcc-6th-climate-assessment-report-release/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">inaccurate</a>, given that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause, but the statement did represent a quantum leap from when the association spuriously <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/10/more-chamber-commerces-climate-denial/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">maintained</a> in comments submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009 that "a warming of even 3 [degrees Celsius] in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans."That said, the Chamber <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/us-chamber-vows-defeat-reconciliation-hails-voting-deadline-bipartisan-infrastructure" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">vowed</a> in an August 24 press release to "do everything [it] can to prevent" the proposed $3.5 trillion <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/09/15/1036954961/congress-is-debating-its-biggest-climate-change-bill-ever-heres-whats-at-stake" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">reconciliation bill</a>—which would slash carbon emissions from the electric power and transportation sectors—"from becoming law." And in a section on its website addressing climate change, the Chamber <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/climate-change-and-environment" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">calls for</a> "the increased use of natural gas" to make "further progress."Increase the use of natural gas?! That runs counter to what climate science says about the need to <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/methane-madness-5-reasons-why-natural-gas-doesnt-belong-in-a-clean-electricity-payment-program/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">swiftly decarbonize the energy sector</a>, essentially trading one major carbon pollution source—coal—for another—methane, which is <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/how-potent-is-methane/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">86 times more potent</a> than carbon dioxide in warming the planet. Moreover, according to a <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab57b3" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">December 2019 study</a> in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters, the carbon dioxide emissions attributable to the boom in natural gas use over the last decade alone have now surpassed the emissions avoided by closing coal-fired power plants.
----ref NERA~ paris cop 21Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Regulations On theIndustrial SectorPrepared for:American Council for Capital Formation Center forPolicy ResearchReport Sponsors inst 21st c energy COC
March 2017<a href="https://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf">https://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf</a>Paul Bernstein, Ph.D., Associate Director W. David Montgomery, Ph.D., Affiliated Consultant Bharat Ramkrishnan, Senior Analyst Sugandha D. Tuladhar, Ph.D., Associate Director<div>=</div>
exxon knew 8/1//16
In any case, according to its own figures posted last week, ExxonMobil <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/global-warming/ucs-exxonmobil-climate-denial-funding-1998-2015.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">spent</a> $1.96 million on 16 denier and obstructionist groups last year. Ten of them, including the American Enterprise Institute, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/search/?q=ALEC" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">American Legislative Exchange Council</a>, Federalist Society and Hoover Institution, were among those listed in the 2007 UCS report.So what is ExxonMobil getting for its money? Let's take a look at a handful of last year's grantees to find out.U.S. Chamber of Commerce:Half of ExxonMobil's 2015 denier donations—$1 million—went to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the same amount it gave the Chamber in 2014.The chamber acknowledges that climate change is happening, but discounts the prevailing scientific consensus that it is largely due to human activity, mainly burning fossil fuels. When pressed about the Chamber's position during a March 2014 Senate hearing, Karen Harbert, head of the Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/here-is-exactly-what-the-chamber-of-commerce-thinks-about-global-warming/447177/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">replied</a> that there is a "robust debate" over what is causing <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">climate change</a>. "It is caused by a lot of things," she insisted.[tobacco scam]Harbert's scientifically indefensible comment was not surprising. The Chamber has a long history of disputing climate science and that has alienated some of its members. In 2009, Apple, Exelon, Nike, PNM Resources and PG&E, for example, cancelled their memberships after Chamber Vice President William Kovacs <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/25/nation/na-climate-trial25" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">demanded</a> that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convene a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" on climate science with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge ruling on the reality of global warming. "It would be evolution versus creationism," Kovacs explained. "It will be climate change science on trial."Those high-profile defections apparently had little impact on the Chamber's position. In May 2014, just days before the EPA announced its draft Clean Power Plan to reduce power plant carbon pollution, the Chamber released a grossly misleading <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/files/file-tool/Assessing_the_Impact_of_Potential_New_Carbon_Regulations_in_the_United_States.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">report</a> attacking the proposed rule. The report, which was also sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, was denounced not only by the <a href="https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/05/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-chamber-of-commerces-report/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">EPA</a>, but also by <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/30/its-epa-vs-us-chamber-commerce-over-climate-change/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">PolitiFact.com</a> and the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/06/03/gop-lawmakers-rush-to-cite-study-to-discredit-new-epa-rule-but-study-assumed-epa-rule-would-be-tougher/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">Washington Post</a>. Among its many faults, the report wildly inflated the cost of the rule and failed to consider the benefits of cutting carbon emissions.Last October, the Chamber and 14 other business associations <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/whos-fighting-clean-power-plan-and-epa-action-climate#bf-toc-6" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">filed</a> a lawsuit against the EPA, arguing that the Clean Power Plan exceeds the agency's authority to regulate the energy sector and the Chamber's priorities for 2016 include opposing EPA efforts to curb carbon emissions as well as the agency's science-based finding that global warming endangers public health and the environment.Manhattan Institute:ExxonMobil gave the Manhattan Institute $200,000 in 2015, boosting the company's total donations to the self-described free-market think tank to $1 million since 1998. In turn, the institute has been cranking out papers and articles denouncing efforts to cut carbon and maligning renewable energy technologies.Last summer, for example, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Oren Cass dismissed the idea of a carbon tax—ExxonMobil's supposed preferred policy—as a "shell game" in an <a href="http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-carbon-tax-shell-game" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">article</a> he wrote for National Affairs. He followed up that essay in October with a <a href="http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/eper_19.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">white paper</a> calling the impending UN climate negotiations in Paris a "farce." What did Cass propose as a better solution? He urged policymakers to "abandon fruitless negotiations and focus instead on the realistic option of promoting innovation and preparing for any future adaptation that may be necessary."The institute's longtime point man on energy, Robert Bryce—who previously worked for the ExxonMobil-funded Institute for Energy Research—says he's "agnostic" about climate change. Over the years he has written numerous columns for the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other publications praising oil, natural gas and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/search/?q=coal" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">coal</a> and disparaging wind and solar. A recent Bryce <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436228/wind-energy-subsidies-billions" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">column</a> in the National Review, for instance, denounced tax breaks and subsidies for the wind industry but ignored the fact that, since 1918, federal oil and gas industry <a href="http://www.dblpartners.vc/resource/what-would-jefferson-do/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">subsidies</a> have averaged $4.85 billion a year in today's dollars.American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC):ALEC, a secretive lobby group that drafts sample corporate-friendly legislation for state lawmakers, has received $1.79 million from ExxonMobil since 1998 and that investment is still paying dividends. At ALEC's annual meeting last July, for example, corporate and legislator members collaborated on <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/jeff-deyette/alecs-annual-meeting-to-feature-more-attacks-on-successful-clean-energy-policies-813?ga=1.132384654.1683277237.1439828438" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">bills and resolutions</a> that would inhibit state implementation of the Clean Power Plan, hamper the solar industry from selling electricity directly to homes and businesses and undermine state renewable energy standards by restricting investment in wind and solar.One of the keynote speakers at that meeting, Stephen Moore—founder of the Club for Growth and a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation—<a href="http://capitalandmain.com/latest-news/issues/society/alec-confidential-tales-from-the-supply-side-0724/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">declared</a> at a plenary session that the "biggest scam of the last 100 years is global warming." ALEC's official position on climate change is only slightly more nuanced, leaving open the question of the role human activity plays. "Climate change is a historical phenomenon," its website <a href="https://www.alec.org/model-policy/alec-energy-principles/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">states</a> "and the debate will continue on the significance of natural and anthropogenic contributions."With that scientifically challenged position, it's no wonder ALEC <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/more-lies-from-alec-about_b_6149568.html" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">invites</a> speakers for its conferences from such notorious climate science denier groups as the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the Heartland Institute and, of course, the Heritage Foundation—all former ExxonMobil grantees.While ExxonMobil and other major carbon producers Chevron and Peabody Energy remain steadfast ALEC members, more than 100 corporations have <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Corporations_that_Have_Cut_Ties_to_ALEC" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">severed ties</a> with the organization for a variety of reasons, including its stance on climate change. Those companies include a number of heavy hitters in the energy sector, including American Electric Power, BP, ConocoPhillips and Shell.National Black Chamber of Commerce:From 2002 through last year, the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) received $1.1 million from ExxonMobil and the organization's president, Harry C. Alford, is unapologetic about taking fossil fuel industry money. "Of course we do and it is only natural," Alford <a href="http://www.nationalbcc.org/news/beyond-the-rhetoric/2428-fossil-fuels-and-african-americans-it-s-family" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">states</a> on the NBCC 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."Last summer, NBCC published a report that falsely <a href="http://nbccnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NBCC_FinalRev1.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">claimed</a> the Clean Power Plan would pose "economic hardship" on poor and minority Americans. A UCS <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/new-flawed-study-of-the-clean-power-plan-how-the-misi-study-gets-it-so-wrong-759?ga=1.61558572.1683277237.1439828438" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">analysis</a> found that the report was based on fraudulent claims from previously published studies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's anti-Clean Power Plan report from 2014. In fact, unchecked climate change would likely hurt poor and minority communities most.More recently, Alford wrote an <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/285944-the-epa-must-respect-the-supreme-courts-authority" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">opinion piece</a> attacking the Clean Power Plan for The Hill, a Washington political trade publication. Like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's bogus 2014 report, Alford's June 29 column vastly exaggerated the cost of the proposed rule and did not factor in the billions of dollars in health and economic benefits that would result from cutting carbon pollution.ExxonMobil's Pretzel LogicLast fall, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/internal-documents-show-f_b_7749988.html" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">UCS</a> and reporters at <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">InsideClimate News</a> and the <a href="http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">Los Angeles Times</a> revealed that Exxon's own scientists had warned the company decades ago about the potential for climate catastrophe. The new revelations also showed that the company responded to that bad news by downplaying climate risks and helping establish the climate science denial network.A number of journalists did follow-up stories, pressing ExxonMobil officials about the company's longtime support for denier groups. They didn't always get the same answer.During an interview last September with Richard Keil, ExxonMobil's senior media relations advisor, WNYC's On the Media host Bob Garfield pushed Keil for an explanation. "Please clarify this for me: Are not funding or did not fund them?" Garfield <a href="http://www.wnyc.org/story/exxon-responds-insideclimate-news/#transcript" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">asked</a>. Keil's response was unequivocal. "We are not funding," he said.When asked the same question by the New York Times in early November, then-Vice President of Public and Government Affairs Kenneth Cohen likewise said no. "We stopped funding them in the middle part of the last decade because a handful of them were making the uncertainty of the science their focal point," he <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html?r=0%20Cohen%20NYT" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">said</a>. "Frankly, we made the call that we needed to back away from supporting the groups that were undercutting the actual risk" of global warming.Cohen's response wasn't a surprise. He made the same disingenuous claim back in February 2007, a few weeks after UCS disclosed that ExxonMobil had been spending millions of dollars on climate science denier groups. Greenwire, a trade news organization, <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Greenwire-Cohen-Exxon-2-9-07.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">reported</a> that Cohen said the company "has stopped funding them."The surprise came on November 9, three days after the New York Times story ran, when PBS NewsHour host Judy Woodruff asked Cohen if ExxonMobil has been funding denier groups. This time he took a different tack."Well, the answer is yes," <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/exxon-mobil-mislead-public-climate-change-research/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">replied</a> Cohen, who retired from the company in January. "And I will let those organizations respond for themselves."But before anyone declares a victory for corporate transparency, it turns out that Cohen's moment of candor was, well, momentary.On December 1, a Washington Post story quoted yet another ExxonMobil spokesperson who qualified Cohen's remark. Alan Jeffers, a media relations manager, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/01/this-is-how-climate-doubt-becomes-powerful-and-spreads-into-the-media/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(78, 147, 66); text-decoration: none;">said</a> the company "rejects the premise" that it has been funding climate science denial."We were engaged with funding public policy groups on policy issues, not on science," Jeffers explained. "We made our position known on some climate policies that made us unpopular with environmental activists and they tried to position that as us funding climate denial. And that's just not accurate."Not accurate? As Jeffers, Keil and their former boss, Cohen, surely know, the think tanks, advocacy groups and associations ExxonMobil has been sponsoring all these years lie about the science to strengthen the argument against doing anything to address climate change. After all, if people believe climate science is a fraud—or at least "far from settled"—they will see no reason to support a carbon tax, cap-and-trade system or any other climate policy. And that line of reasoning, which protects the status quo, seems to suit ExxonMobil just fine.Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists=

<h2 style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The U.S. Chamber's Regional Government Affairs Conferences</h2>

<p style="margin: 1.5em 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Since at least 2004, the U.S. Chamber has been inviting state and local chamber staff twice a year to travel to posh resorts for "regional government affairs conferences." Like ALEC's conference <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/05/11443/cmd-special-report-alecs-scholarship-scheme-helps-corporations-fund-legislator-tr" target="_blank" style=" text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">model</a>, the Chamber underwrites conference attendees' travel expenses with "scholarship" money.

At the conferences, U.S. Chamber lobbyists, outside political consultants, professional pollsters and the CEOs of transnational corporations help indoctrinate state and local chamber staff on how best to follow the U.S. Chamber's special interest agenda.

The conferences cover a wide range of lobbying agenda items.

On energy, attendees are regularly briefed by Karen Harbert, the president of the U.S. Chamber's "Institute for 21st Century Energy." Harbert and the "Institute" she presides over have long advocated for deregulating fracking, expanding offshore oil drilling in U.S. coastal waters, rejecting the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, and vastly increasing coal and nuclear energy production.

On international trade issues, attendees hear from the likes of Christopher Wenk, the "Director of International Policy" at the U.S. Chamber, on why local and state chambers should lobby lawmakers to pass "free trade" agreements like the TPP and TTIP, despite the job-killing consequences of similar trade deals that the Chamber has backed that have decimated U.S. manufacturing jobs.

On labor issues, Glenn Spencer of the U.S. Chamber's "Workforce Freedom Initiative" regularly leads panel discussions. Spencer formerly worked for David Koch's Citizens for a Sound Economy operation (the predecessor of Kochs' Americans for Prosperity and also the FreedomWorks entities) and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Predictably, his briefings are rabidly anti-union/anti-worker rights.

And so on.

But it's not all policy talk at these "government affairs" retreats.

Conferences end with a "political workshop" highlighting the U.S. Chamber's latest approaches to effective electioneering, because, in one conference agenda's description, "Getting actively engaged in politics is the new frontier for chambers for a simple reason: it's easier to elect officials who understand your concerns than to convince officials who fundamentally disagree with you" (emphasis added).

Conference agendas also show that the U.S. Chamber is keen on making sure state and local chamber lobbyists and staff have time to booze and schmooze. Every conference features two nights of alcohol-fueled entertainment.

Last October in Nashville, conference attendees were taken by bus to the Country Music Hall of Fame to enjoy "an intimate show with Nashville's finest songwriters."

At a conference for state and local chamber lobbyists earlier in 2015 in Las Vegas, attendees were invited to an open-bar reception at RHUMBAR, a location, the conference agenda specified, where the "plush outdoor patio is reminiscent of a tropical retreat, offering a picturesque location for attendees to mingle, sip cocktails, and take in the great views of the Las Vegas strip."

The following night, Vegas attendees were encouraged to "unwind at Ghostbar," another venue "with breathtaking skyline panoramas."

The term wined-and-dined is typically used to describe corporate interests' dealings with public officials. But state and local chambers do represent – or claim to represent – their communities in democratic forums and governing bodies.

Through the U.S. Chamber's luxurious conferences, the lobbyists and staff of state and local chambers are wined, dined, and indoctrinated with special-interest talking points.

<h2 style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The U.S. Chamber's "Chamber of Commerce Committee of 100"</h2>

<p style="margin: 1.5em 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Chamber of Commerce Committee of 100 (CCC100) is an invite-only group of state and local chamber executives that gathers with U.S. Chamber lobbyists twice a year at opulent hotels and resorts across the country to help advance chamber lobbying priorities in states and cities for the coming six months.

The Chamber states that CCC100 "advises the U.S. Chamber on programs and services for chambers and provides feedback on policy-related issues." However CCC100 documents show the opposite: the Chamber is very much in charge of CCC100's policy agenda.

On March 1-3, 2016, CCC100 gathered for its first meeting of the year at the luxurious Ritz Carlton in Orlando, Florida. The three-day conference kicked off with a golf tournament on the Ritz's PGA tour course. Cocktail receptions, dinners, electronic skeet shooting, and a Super Tuesday viewing party followed. More importantly, so did U.S. Chamber-dominated policy discussions.

The conference featured an hour-long speech from U.S. Chamber CEO Tom Donohue; a policy update from the Chamber's most senior government and political affairs executive; a luncheon featuring Michael L. Ducker, the Chamber's chairman of the board and the CEO of FedEx Freight; an economic update from the Chamber's chief economist; and a networking session co-hosted by the Chamber's managing director.

</div>

</div>

So much for CCC100 "advising" the U.S. Chamber on public policy.

CCC100 conferences have lasting impacts on state and local chamber executives. As the former CEO of the Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce Barbara DeBoom stated, "My participation on the CCC100 allows our chamber to stay ahead of the herd on economic updates, public policy issues, and leadership skills."

DeBoom went on to proclaim that CCC100 also serves as an excellent resource for her community, although the U.S. Chamber is largely funded by some of the largest global corporations in the world, whose interests are generally at odds with local communities.

Lastly, the U.S. Chamber's claim that CCC100 is merely a gathering of chamber executives is unfounded. There is another group that regularly attends CCC100 meetings: other corporate lobbyists.

"This is a tremendous opportunity for you and your organization to access influential executives," the Chamber wrote in a sponsorship brochure for potential CCC100 corporate sponsors. In the brochure, the most prominently listed sponsorship perk was "three days of unlimited access to the nation's top chamber presidents and CEOs."

Lobbyists lobbying other lobbyists. There ought to be a term for the exponential explosion of corporate lobbyists hired ultimately to influence officials elected to represent actual citizens—human beings in a democracy, not global corporations.

<h2 style=" line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;">The U.S. Chamber's Institute for Organization Management</h2>

The "Institute for Organization Management" (IOM) is a professional development program of the U.S. Chamber designed to "enhance individual performance, elevate professional standards, and recognize association, chamber of commerce, and other nonprofit professionals who demonstrate the knowledge essential to the practice of nonprofit management."

In this sense, IOM serves as a leadership pipeline for the chamber network. The four-installment program, which the Chamber describes in academic terms, is offered to chamber professionals at five so-called "institutes" across the country.

Like the Chamber's regional government affairs conferences, "scholarships" are provided to IOM participants, who are instructed by a "faculty" of political consultants, communication strategists, lobbyists, lawyers, and seasoned chamber professionals (many of whom are former graduates of IOM).

Notably, a handful of the "courses" offered at IOM are about money and influence: "E250 PACs and Political Endorsements," "E211 Sponsorship Solicitation," "E362 Policy Development and Implementation," and "C270 Effective Government Affairs Programs."

<h2 style=" line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;">The Association of Chambers of Commerce Executives</h2>

The Association of Chambers of Commerce Executives (ACCE) works "to support and develop chamber professionals to lead businesses and their communities." (This ACCE is distinct from the new project spawned by ALEC that shares that acronym: the American City County Exchange.)

</div>

===

Institute for 21st Century Energy

<h1 class="title">Chamber Calls Obama's Clean Energy Plan "Ridiculously Premature"</h1>

</div>

—By <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/authors/kate-sheppard" rel="author">Kate Sheppard</a>

</div>

So much for <a href="http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/01/energy-climate-obama-sotu">everyone linking arms</a> and walking together toward a clean energy future. A week after President Obama called for setting a goal of drawing 80 percent of electricity from "clean" energy sources by 2035, the US Chamber of Commerce sent a message back in his direction: fat chance.

The Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy held a press conference on Tuesday to roll out its energy plans for the year. Endorsement of a clean energy standard—even one that includes nuclear power, natural gas, and "clean coal" in the mix, as Obama's does—was not part of it. The Chamber has been a <a target="_blank" href="http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/more-chamber-commerces-climate-denial">major opponent</a> of efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but the group signaled Tuesday that it is also going to fight Obama's much scaled-back version of an energy plan as well.

"It's ridiculously premature to even have a CES conversation," said Christopher Guith, vice president for policy at the Institute, referring to what specific figure the Chamber would endorse for a target. "We have very little idea where many of these new members of Congress are going. We know that the House majority has said that it's not very likely that they're even going to entertain a CES." He added, "The fact that the president put it out there—it's good to discuss the policy impacts, but again, the political reality is getting smaller by the day."

The Chamber says that the administration's approach to energy is "unrealistic"—arguing that it "picks winners and losers." The powerful business lobby group argued that an eight-fold increase in non-hydro renewables would be needed to meet that goal, which the group claims is "impossible" to achieve.

In particular, the Chamber pushed back on the call to cut subsidies and tax loopholes for the oil industry. "Raising taxes on the industry that fuels our lives shows a profound detachment from our energy and economic reality," said Karen Harbert, president of the Institute, in a statement last week. She elaborated further on the Chamber's preferred energy plan on Tuesday, calling for increased access to land for oil and gas drilling both onshore and offshore and eliminating "regulatory barriers" to energy projects.

The Chamber's plan calls for "streamlining" environmental reviews to speed energy projects faster, targeting in particular enforcement of the National Environmental Protection Act. The group insisted that it doesn't want enforcement weakened—but then went on to state that it wants to "ensure that the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are not used indiscriminately to threaten adequate supplies of energy."

The Chamber did support plans for a clean energy bank, a provision included in different iterations in both the House and Senate climate and energy bills last year under the name Clean Energy Deployment Administration, or CEDA.

One interesting element of the Chamber's energy presentation was the recognition that so-called "clean coal" isn't likely to play a significant role in the energy portfolio any time soon. "Clean coal technology most likely will not be available in that time frame," Harbert said in her opening remarks. Asked to elaborate after the event, Harbert said, "Given the state of readiness and from the industry's own acknowledgment, they don't see it having permeated the market in any significant manner."

This, of course, is far from what we were hearing a few years ago, when the coal industry and its allies were promising that <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-17-coal-industry-downplays-ccs-prospects-senate/">emissions-free coal</a> was just around the corner. Obama also touted it in the State of the Union address last week, though the Chamber's probably right on this one—it's looking less like a near-term option all the time.

<h1><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/12/01/174199/jones-climate-catastrophe/">Jim Jones’ Chamber Of Commerce Organization Promotes Catastrophic Energy Future</a></h1>

By Brad Johnson on Dec 1, 2008 at 2:20 pm

General James L. Jones, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), whom President-elect Barack Obama today <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8106131">selected to be his national security adviser</a>, <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/about/management/jones.htm">currently runs</a> a U.S. Chamber of Commerce energy policy front group. Jones is president and chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/">Institute for 21st Century Energy</a>, whose stated mission is “to unify policymakers, regulators, business leaders, and the American public behind <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/pages/about_us.aspx">common sense energy strategy</a> to help keep America secure, prosperous, and clean.” However, following the recommendations of Jones’ institute would be catastrophic for the security, prosperity, and health of the United States.

The Institute for 21st Century Energy’s vision of America’s energy future is blind to the realities of climate change, inexcusable for an organization <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/articles/Speech_Launch.aspx">founded in June 2007</a>. All of its recommendations are based on the presumption that “<a href="http://energyxxi.org/pages/open_letter.aspx">global demand for energy will increase by more than 50 percent</a> between now and 2030 and by as much as 30 percent here at home,” based on the business-as-usual scenario from International Energy Agency’s 2007 World Energy Outlook report. But this scenario of rampant energy demand is also one of catastrophic global warming pollution. The IEA report also indicated that energy-related carbon emissions would “<a href="http://www.iea.org/textbase/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=246">increase by almost 60%</a>” by 2030, <a href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/04/25/big-oil-future/">leading to global disaster</a>.

The institute deserves credit for having its first strategic priority be <a href="http://energyxxi.org/issues/Improve_Energy_Efficiency.aspx">energy efficiency</a>, but its other priorities and specific policy suggestions are wrongheaded and reflect the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s typical anti-regulatory, pro-pollution industry agenda. Jones’ <a href="http://energyxxi.org/reports/Transition_Plan.pdf">Transition Plan</a> calls for billions of dollars in <a href="http://energyxxi.org/pages/Blueprint_Commit_to_and_Expand_Nuclear_Energy_Use.aspx">subsidies for the nuclear</a> and <a href="http://energyxxi.org/pages/Blueprint_Commit_to_the_Use_of_Clean_Coal.aspx">coal industry</a>, a <a href="http://energyxxi.org/pages/Blueprint_Immediately_Expand_Domestic_Oil_and_Natural_Gas_Exploration_and_Production.aspx">dramatic expansion in domestic oil and natural gas drilling</a> into protected areas, and massive new energy industry tax breaks and loopholes.

Meanwhile, the plan argues that Congress should <a href="http://energyxxi.org/pages/Blueprint_Reduce_Overly_Burdensome_Regulations_and_Opportunities_for_Frivolous_Litigation.aspx">prevent regulation of greenhouse gas emissions</a> under any existing state or federal law, and that “any new national climate change policy should be conditional on an international agreement that requires full international participation.” In short, the Institute’s climate change policy looks stunningly like that of the <a href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/04/16/earth-to-bush/">Bush administration</a>: “<a href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/17/a-bunch-of-mostly-bland-old-guys-offer-a-bunch-of-mostly-bland-old-solution/">Don’t just sit there, do nothing.</a>”

Not only are these recommendations foolhardy to the extreme, they come in <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#emissions">direct opposition to Obama’s stated policy objectives</a>, which include a mandatory cap-and-trade program, development of renewable energy through quality jobs, and the enforcement of existing environmental laws. If America’s future is to be secure, the next national security adviser must understand that the policies he has spent the last eighteen months promoting are reckless. Hopefully, he will renounce the <a href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/11/18/chamber-chicken-littles/">efforts of his current employer</a> to push this nation deeper into the fossil-energy hole.

Fortunately for Jones, other former senior military officers have taken the task of constructing a rational 21st century energy policy seriously. On April 16, 2007, the military advisory board to the CNA Corporation, a non-profit think tank, released the study, “<a href="http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/">National Security and the Threat of Climate Change</a>.” The panel, including former Army chief of staff Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan and retired Marine Corps General Anthony C. Zinni, former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, properly encapsulated the <a href="http://securityandclimate.cna.org/">security challenge of global warming</a>:

Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents signiﬁcant national security challenges for the United States. Accordingly, it is appropriate to start now to help mitigate the severity of some of these emergent challenges. The decision to act should be made soon in order to plan prudently for the nation’s security. The increasing risks from climate change should be addressed now because they will almost certainly get worse if we delay.

</blockquote>

<h5>Update</h5>

At <a href="http://getenergysmartnow.com/2008/11/24/the-us-chamber-of-commerce-and-energy-xxi-a-glance-with-thoughts/">Energy Smart</a>, A Siegel has more:

Reading the Institute for 21st Century Energy sometimes feels like visiting an alternative universe, overlapping with reality but with a skewed lens sometimes distorting things nearly beyond recognition.

</blockquote>

</div>