ENERGY CORPS

see ENERGY CORPS 2
=<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/dirty-scheme-americans-buy-more-gasoline-2623764478.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/dirty-scheme-americans-buy-more-gasoline-2623764478.html</a>
The Dirty Scheme to Make Americans Buy More Gasoline<span class="js-scroll-trigger" data-target="body" data-triggers="render-rebelbar" data-toggle-class="with-floating-shares" data-loaded="true" style="margin-top: 10px; color: rgb(31, 31, 31); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px; color: rgb(31, 31, 31); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url css-listicle-body-2623764478" data-elid="2623764478" data-authors="Natural Resources Defense Council" data-headline="The Dirty Scheme to Make Americans Buy More Gasoline" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px; color: rgb(31, 31, 31); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body-description">By Rhea SuhIt's not often that an industry chieftain brags to investors about picking the pockets of American families with help from the White House.That's what happened, though, after <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-oil" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">Big Oil</a> schemed with the Trump administration last summer to ensure higher gasoline consumption—to the tune of $16 billion a year—and more climate-disrupting carbon pollution from our cars, vans and pickup trucks.An important investigative story by the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">New York Times</a> lays bare this craven sellout of the public interest and details the hammerlock the oil industry has on domestic policy under President Trump. The article details how the Trump administration bowed to the major oil companies to try and gut commonsense rules that were already saving consumers billions of dollars a year at the pump and helping clean up our dirty tailpipe emissions.In a cynical confession, Gary Heminger, chairman of Marathon Petroleum, boasted to analysts last week that weakening the clean car rules would boost gasoline sales by up to 16.8 million gallons a day.At $2.65 a gallon, the national November average, that comes to $44.5 million a day, or more than $16 billion a year, money that American workers won't be able to spend on their families' needs because it will go, instead, to the oil industry. "However," Heminger warned investors, "you have another side who doesn't want to pivot away" from the fuel savings and pollution reductions the rules support. "So we have a lot of work to do to keep this momentum going."That so-called "work" doesn't come cheap. In the national elections of 2016 and 2018, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2018&ind=E01" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry totaled $176 million</a>, with 87 cents of every dollar going to Trump's party.It's paying off for the industry—at the country's expense.In 2012, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-administration-auto-industry-strike-deal-on-vehicle-fuel-efficiency/2011/07/27/gIQA72mKdI_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.494e3cb1eb31" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">with the endorsement of the major automakers</a>, the <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation teamed up</a> on <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/luke-tonachel/strong-clean-car-and-fuel-economy-standards-finalized-here-are-details-and" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">a pair of rules that cut tailpipe pollution </a>from our cars, vans, SUVs and pickup trucks. The rules had the industry on track to double gas mileage by 2025, cutting the nation's oil consumption by a staggering 2.4 million barrels per day by 2030.It's one of the most important steps we've taken, as a country, to protect future generations from the growing dangers of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">climate change</a>. That's because our cars and light trucks account for about <a href="https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">17 percent of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases</a> contributing to the problem. Mile for mile, the 2012 rules cut the carbon footprint of driving in half.The measures have supported a surge in manufacturing jobs, with <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/supplying-ingenuity-clean-vehicle-technologies-report.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">nearly 300,000 Americans hard at work helping us to get more miles from a gallon of gas</a> or moving us closer to the electric cars and hybrid vehicles of the future. Some 70,000 of those jobs are in Michigan alone, where more than 224 facilities are turning out materials or components to help make our cars run cleaner and more efficiently.Last August, though, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/trump-administration-reverses-clean-car-standards-gutting-another-key-climate-policy" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">the Trump administration proposed gutting the rules</a>, throwing national support for clean car progress into reverse. Automakers wanted flexibility in meeting the clean car standards. On balance, though, the rules complemented tens of billions of dollars in industry investment in a new generation of automobiles.So it was something of a mystery as to why the administration turned away from standards that save our families billions of dollars a year at the pump, fight the central environmental challenge of our time, and help create scores of thousands of well-paying jobs. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">The Times article</a> provides the answer: it's not the automakers but, rather, the oil companies that see the road ahead through the rearview mirror.We're not going to stand by and watch Donald Trump put our future at risk to pump up oil profits. We're fighting this proposal. We'll make our case in court, if necessary, and <a href="http://cleancarstates.org/big-oil-behind-shadowy-campaign-to-gut-clean-car-rules/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">we've joined other groups in calling on the EPA and the Transportation Department to come clean</a> about how the administration sold out our environment and our pocketbooks in its fealty to fossil fuels.As my NRDC colleague <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/testimony-of-luke-tonachel-regarding-proposed-rollback-of-clean-cars-fuel-economy-standards_2018-09-25.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">Luke Tonachel testified in a federal hearing on the proposed changes last September</a>, "We Americans pay taxes so that the government will serve and protect us, not Big Oil."<a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/rhea-suh" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">Rhea Suh</a> is the president of the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>.</div></div>=omg why?<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/disappointing-backwards-step-critics-blast-u-s-exit-from-global-oil-gas-anti-corruption-effort-2505846330.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/disappointing-backwards-step-critics-blast-u-s-exit-from-global-oil-gas-anti-corruption-effort-2505846330.html</a> = <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/28/obama-gifts-to-big-oil">http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/28/obama-gifts-to-big-oil</a>  BP writes off civil $?busted:=<div><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco">http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco</a>
<div>...</div><div>The group was initially called the CO2 and Climate Task Force, but changed its name to the Climate and Energy Task Force in 1980, Nelson said.A background paper on CO2 informed API members in 1979 that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising steadily, and it predicted when the first clear effects of climate change might be felt, according to a memo by an Exxon task force representative.  In addition, API task force members appeared open to the idea that the oil industry might have to shoulder some responsibility for reducing CO2emissions by changing refining processes and developing fuels that emitted less carbon dioxide.Bruce S. Bailey of Texaco offered "for consideration" the idea that "an overall goal of the Task Force should be to help develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2creation," according to the <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/AQ-9%20Task%20Force%20Meeting%20%281980%29.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(131, 190, 68); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">minutes of a meeting on Feb. 29, 1980</a>.The <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/AQ-9%20Task%20Force%20Meeting%20%281980%29.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(131, 190, 68); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">minutes also show</a> that the task force discussed a "potential area" for research and development that called for it to "'Investigate the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.' This would include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing and requirements."Yet by the 1990s, it was clear that API had opted for a markedly different approach to the threat of climate change. It joined Exxon, other fossil fuel companies and major manufacturers in the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a lobbying group whose objective was to derail international efforts to curb heat-trapping emissions. In 1998, a year after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted by countries to cut fossil fuel emissions, API crafted a campaign to convince the American public and lawmakers that climate science was too tenuous for the United States to ratify the treaty....</div><div></div></div>---<h1 itemprop="headline name" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; letter-spacing: 0.7px;">Report: All Major Oil Companies Knew of Climate Change by 1970s</h1><div class="date_content" style="margin-bottom: 8px; letter-spacing: 0.5px;"><div class="date" style="margin: 4px 8px 8px 0px; text-transform: uppercase; display: inline-block; vertical-align: inherit;">DECEMBER 24, 2015</div><div class="content_type_flag" style="line-height: 13px; text-transform: uppercase; padding: 3px 0.5em; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 4px 0px 8px; display: inline-block; vertical-align: inherit;">HEADLINES  DN</div></div><div itemprop="articleBody" style="letter-spacing: 0.5px;">A new investigation by the Pulitzer Prize-winning outlet InsideClimate News suggests that nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company was aware of the impact of fossil fuels on climate change as early as the late 1970s. Earlier exposés by InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times have revealed that Exxon scientists knew about climate change as early as 1977, and for decades Exxon concealed its own findings that the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming, alters the climate and melts the Arctic ice. Now, internal documents obtained by InsideClimate News reveal that the entire oil and gas industry had similar knowledge. From 1979 to 1983, the oil and gas industry trade group American Petroleum Institute ran a task force to monitor and share climate research. The group’s members included senior scientists and engineers from not only Exxon, but also Amoco, Phillips, Mobil, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Sohio and Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil, the predecessors to Chevron. The documents show that as early as 1979, the task force knew carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising steadily. The task force even briefly considered researching how to introduce a new energy source into the global market, given the research about fossil fuels’ impact on global warming. But in 1983, the task force was disbanded, and by the late 1990s, the American Petroleum Institute had launched a campaign to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted by many countries to cut fossil fuel emissions but was never ratified by the United States.</div>
=export ban lifted by lobbying:<div class="entry-content" style="margin: 5px 0px; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 24px;">e <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">oil industry</a>‘s victory in the battle to lift the crude export ban didn’t come out of thin air. Opponents of the prohibition — long some of the biggest forces in the Washington influence game — began lobbying on the issue in earnest in early 2013, with the effort building until they accomplished their long-sought goal when language was inserted into a must-pass spending bill that funds the government until October 2016.The language lifting the ban found its way into the $1.1 trillion omnibus package this week through some congressional horse-trading: Environmentalist Democrats got half-a-decade of tax credits for solar and wind projects, while their industry-friendly counterparts like Sen. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033782&cycle=2016" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Heidi Heitkamp</a> (D-N.D.) and most Republicans got an end to the prohibition on overseas crude sales.“It’s incredible what the Democrats in Congress were willing to give up for just five years of renewable energy tax credits,” Marcie Keever, a Berkeley, Calif.-based expert on oil exports and a program director at Friends of the Earth.Lobbying firms began to report activity on issues like “oil export” and “crude export” for the first time in 2013 — a few years after the country’s fracking boom, concentrated in regions like the Bakken Shale formation in Heitkamp’s home state, began to strain the capacities of coastal refineries and the oil transport infrastructure that led to them. Crude oil couldn’t be exported (except in special cases) due to long-standing federal law; it could, however, be refined and sold overseas as a different product, like gasoline.But two years, hundreds of lobbying reports and millions of dollars later, that will change. By <a href="http://www.api.org/_{/media/files/policy/exports/crude-oil-exports-primer/us-crude-oil-exports-low-res.pdf}" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">one estimat</a>e, crude oil exports in the United States could rise to 1.8 million barrels per day by 2017.In 2013, only a handful of companies reported lobbying activity on oil exports, according to an OpenSecrets Blog analysis of federal lobbying data: <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000303" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">ConocoPhillips</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000042525" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Shell Oil</a>, the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000054156" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">National Association of Manufacturers</a>and <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000064995" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">PBF Energy</a>. At one point that year, just 16 registered lobbyists in Washington reported working to influence policy on “oil exports,” “crude exports” or an issue with similar phrasing.That could have put the oil giants on relatively even footing with the environmental group <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000026112&year=2015" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Friends of the Earth</a>, which starting lobbying on the oil export ban in the first quarter of 2014. But as the first environmentalist organization joined the scrum, so too did 53 other lobbyists from companies like <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000091&year=2015" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">BP</a>,<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000022303&year=2015" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Valero</a>,<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000459&year=2015" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Anadarko Petroleum</a> and <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000026132&year=2015" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">HollyFrontier Corp</a>, to name a few. The <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000031493" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">American Petroleum Institute</a> joined the fray in the second quarter of 2014. The number of lobbyists on the case only kept rising, as did the number of times firms mentioned “oil exports” or “crude exports” in their reports and the number of clients paying to influence the policy.By the third quarter of this year, the number of lobbyists on the issue had grown to 300. All told, organizations and companies that lobbied on the measure spent $38 million weighing in on that and other issues in the third quarter of 2015. Oil interests outspent environmentalists by a wide margin.While the lobbying ramped up on K Street, the message found its champions on Capitol HIll in Heitkamp and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).“This policy didn’t happen overnight,” Heitkamp said in <a href="http://www.heitkamp.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=e0ee020b-8c74-4111-8d28-d8bcdd3213a8" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">a press release</a> after the deal was announced this week. “Senator Murkowski and I have been meeting with and educating other senators about the need to lift the ban on exporting oil for about a year and a half.”<a href="http://www.heitkamp.senate.gov/public/cache/files/5296dd6c-1eb2-4103-b99d-8c2a82136751/12-3-timeline-on-efforts-to-lift-the-ban-on-crude-oil-exports.pdf" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">A timeline</a> Heitkamp’s office published with the press release shows the senator first called for lifting the ban in August 2014, or the third quarter of that year. In September 2014, she invited the CEO of Hess Corporation to appear on a CNBC show she guest-hosted; months later, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000034447" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Hess Corporation</a> reported lobbying on oil exports, along with 30 other clients.Heitkamp <a href="https://medium.com/@SenatorHeitkamp/what-you-don-t-know-you-don-t-know-about-lifting-the-ban-on-crude-oil-exports-6142ae4f95dc#.qij67ucw5" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">cites studies</a> that show lifting the ban may lead to a slight decrease in gas prices, and the bill will help exporters in her state looking to sell the oil they’ve extracted. Her office did not immediately comment on the lobbying surge.Keever, though, doesn’t see an upside to lifting the ban.“We’re going to see more exploding trains. We’re going to see more oil spills, more vessel incidents where oil is spilled in our marine waters,” she said.</div><footer class="entry-meta" style="line-height: 15px;">
Categories: <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/category/influence-lobbying/industries/" rel="category tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Industries</a> <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/category/influence-lobbying/" rel="category tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Influence & Lobbying</a> <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/category/influence-lobbying/lobbying/" rel="category tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Lobbying</a> <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/category/influence-lobbying/industries/oil-gas/" rel="category tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Oil & gas</a>

Tags: <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/american-petroleum-institute/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">American Petroleum Institute</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/bp/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">bp</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/conocophillips/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">conocophillips</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/crude-export-ban/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">crude export ban</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/crude-oil/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">crude oil</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/friends-of-the-earth/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Friends of the Earth</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/heidi-heitkamp/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Heidi Heitkamp</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/hess-corporation/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">hess corporation</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/lisa-murkowski/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Lisa Murkowski</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/marcie-keever/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">marcie keever</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/north-dakota/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">north dakota</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/oil-export-ban/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">oil export ban</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/shell-oil/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Shell Oil</a></footer>http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/18/omnibus-spending-bill<h1 itemprop="name" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.67em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 40px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Congressional Republicans Deliver Early Christmas Gift to Big Oil, Exxon and Koch Brothers</h1><div>This early Christmas gift to Big Oil, <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=exxon" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">ExxonMobil</a> and the <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=koch" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Koch brothers</a> from Congressional Republicans will send American jobs overseas, rip up more iconic American landscapes to pump oil that nobody needs, and increase the carbon pollution that’s driving the climate crisis.Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans have yet to recognize that the entire world, including even the biggest oil producing states like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia just agreed to set an expiration date on fossil fuels and power the world with clean energy.Democrats were successful in ensuring that some aspects of this budget move America closer to our clean energy future. Those include long term extensions of wind and solar energy tax credits, as well as the near total absence of destructive riders designed to de-fund essential clean air and clean water programs. Furthermore, Congressional Republicans were ultimately unable to block important international climate funding which their most fringe members threatened to withhold throughout the global negotiations in Paris.Other important measures, including an extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), as well as a small but insufficient start toward funding essential policies that help the communities and workers historically reliant on coal, were also included.YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE<a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/16/crude-oil-export-ban/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Lifting Crude Oil Export Ban Locks in Fossil Fuel Dependency for Decades to Come</a></div> <section class="single-article-header" style="line-height: 18px;"><div class="row collapse article-meta" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><div class="small-12 columns" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span class="article-byline" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">By <a class="url fn" title="Posts by Ben Adler" href="http://grist.org/author/ben-adler/" rel="author" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Ben Adler</a>   GRIST</div><div class="small-12 columns" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">
</div></div></section><section class="article-body clearfix" style="line-height: 18px;">It’s nice to read all those stories about Bernie Sanders’ army of small donors, isn’t it? Growing <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/us/politics/bernie-sanders-success-in-attracting-small-donors-tests-importance-of-super-pacs.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">even faster</a> than the group that supported the record-breaking 2008 Obama campaign, this scruffy band of schoolteachers, nurses, and unionized blue-collar workers is going to take our country back and pass progressive legislation on everything from health insurance to climate change — right?<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;" /><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Well, not if the super-rich have any say. And they’ve got a lot. The big change since Obama’s 2008 election is that the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 in <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Citizens United v FEC that Congress cannot limit spending by rich individuals or corporations on political action committees. Hence, the rise of super PACs, which direct millions of dollars — in many cases from just one deep-pocketed donor — on behalf of a party or candidate.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?r=0" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">combed through</a> Federal Election Commission reports for the presidential race through June 30 and looked at every donor who gave more than $250,000 — 158 families in total. Altogether, that group and the corporations they control gave more than $176 million. Add in the 200 families that gave between $100,000 and $250,000, and those 358 families have given well more than half of all the campaign funds thus far.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Of the 158 mega-donors, the most common industry in which they have made their money is finance and the second biggest is energy, mostly oil and gas. The donors are disproportionately old, white, and male, concentrated in a handful of very rich, non-diverse neighborhoods. Most importantly, their politics are not representative of the country at all: 138 of the 158, or 87 percent, are Republicans. Contrary to the popular image of moderate pro-business Park Avenue bankers, some of these donors hail from the GOP’s anti-government right wing. “More than a dozen donors or members of their families have been involved with the twice-yearly seminars hosted by the Kochs,” the <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Times notes. What they and the establishment donors have in common: They are investing in their own financial self-interest. Donating a few million dollars to a candidate who goes on to win and cuts a billionaire oil magnate’s taxes, or stymies regulations of his industry, will more than pay for itself.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">If you’ve been wondering why public opinion in favor of higher taxes on the rich, increased Social Security benefits, or tighter regulation of carbon pollution doesn’t lead to passage of those policies, this is a big reason.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Here are some key quotes from the <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Times:<blockquote style="margin: 1.5em; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 220, 220); outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; quotes: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The donor families’ wealth reflects, in part, the vast growth of the financial-services sector and the boom in oil and gas, which have helped transform the American economy in recent decades. They are also the beneficiaries of political and economic forces that are driving widening inequality: <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">As the share of national wealth and income</a> going to the middle class has shrunk, these families are among those whose share has grown. …<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">In energy, some were latter-day wildcatters, early to capitalize on the new drilling technologies and high energy prices that made it economical to exploit shale formations in North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. Others made fortunes supplying those wildcatters with pipelines, trucks and equipment for “fracking.” …<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The giving, more broadly, reflects the political stakes this year for the families and businesses that have moved most aggressively to take advantage of Citizens United, particularly in the energy and finance industries. …<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">While the shale boom has generated new fortunes, it has also produced a glut of oil that is now driving down prices. Most in the industry favor lifting the 40-year-old ban on exporting oil, which would give domestic producers access to new customers overseas, and approval of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.</blockquote><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Fortunes made through fracking and other types of oil and gas extraction are being deployed in politics to advance the industry’s interests, such as stymieing stronger fracking <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-hawks-are-not-impressed-by-obamas-methane-plan/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">regulations</a>, approving Keystone XL, and lifting the crude oil export ban. These are policies that <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/even-as-house-descends-into-chaos-it-manages-to-do-big-favor-for-big-oil/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">do not serve</a> the public interest <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/ted-cruz-is-right-everyone-is-too-fixated-on-keystone-xl/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">by any measure</a>.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">If you didn’t already believe that we need a constitutional amendment reversing <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Citizens United, you should now.</section>9/15http://insideclimatenews.org/news/01092015/fossil-fuel-industry-ensures-CEO-executive-pay-bonues-sink-climate<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="color: rgb(35, 31, 32);"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded">A <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/executive-excess-2015/" style="color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">report released Wednesday </a>examining the pay practices of the 30 largest publicly held U.S. oil, gas, and coal companies concluded that pay incentives for the companies' chief executives encourages reckless behavior and is hastening a climate crisis.In the analysis, all 13 oil exploration and production companies examined by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) tied executive bonuses to increasing the amount of proven carbon reserves each year."What we are essentially doing here is paying people massive amounts of money to continue to drill and burn and do things that are going to harm the planet and put a lot of costs on the rest of us," said lead author Sarah Anderson of IPS, a Washington D.C.-based think tank.Fossil fuel companies current hold vast reserves of oil, gas, and coal which, if burned in their entirety would emit five times the amount of carbon than can be emitted to keep the planet from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius. The same companies also spend $600 billion a year to locate additional carbon reserves."These companies are already sitting on reserves that if fully burned would cause catastrophic effects, so why are we tying executive bonuses to expanding those reserves?" Anderson said.Compensation packages for corporate executives are increasingly tied to short-term profit gains, a practice financial watchdogs criticize. For the oil and gas sector, however, the concern is amplified by the carbon dioxide emissions created from burning fossil fuels.  "When you're talking about companies with this great of an impact on our long-term health, we think it is even more necessary to take a long hard look at this and change the incentives," Anderson said.  The report cites the salary and stock bonuses of ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, who made a reported $33 million in 2014. Under Tillerson, Exxon has boosted share prices by buying back its own stock, which also inflates Tillerson's equity-based pay. According to the report, 51 percent of ExxonMobil earnings per share growth from 2003-13 was a result of buybacks. Tillerson owns an estimated $166 million worth of shares.ConocoPhillips also gave its CEO, Ryan Lance, an 18 percent raise to $27 million in 2014, the report says, while the company laid off 1,500 employees that year.One group looking to change incentives for oil and gas company executives is Ceres, a non-profit sustainability advocacy organization based in Boston. In 2013, the group launched <a href="http://www.ceres.org/issues/files/investor-files/car-factsheet" style="color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">the Carbon Asset Risk Initiative</a> to work with fossil fuel companies to address the financial risks of climate change."It really comes down to compensating executives for creating value for the company rather than compensating for amassing huge reserves on their books that might never be exploited or brought to market," said Shanna Cleveland, a senior manager at Ceres.For the past 150 years, the best way for these companies to make more money was to sell more barrels of oil, so increasing reserves made sense. We are now, however, entering a period of transition where continued expansion of reserves isn't necessarily in a company's best interest, Cleveland said."You need to think about whether you've got reserves on your books that are resilient to reduced prices for a barrel of oil, lower demand scenarios, and whether or not you can generate revenues from other types of energy sources," Cleveland said.<a href="http://www.qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/KC-ESG_Toil%20for%20Oil-1.pdf" style="color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">A 2014 study</a> by European financial services company Kepler Cheuvreux compared potential investments by oil companies over a 20-year period.  The study found that onshore wind would be competitive with oil over a 20-year period if oil sold for $25 a barrel. Offshore wind would be competitive with oil at at $50 a barrel and solar would compete at $75 a barrel.  Oil is currently trading at $47 a barrel, down from $100 in July 2014.The current report also found fault with share repurchases, a controversial practice of public companies buying back shares of their own stock. Critics say this artificially inflates a company's share price. In 2014, 23 of the top 30 fossil fuel companies spent a combined $38.5 billion repurchasing shares, a figure six times larger than the $6.6 billion all corporations spent that year on research into renewable energy, according to the report."The money that is disgorged through share repurchases would be much better spent doing research and development on green energy technologies," said Lynn Stout, a professor of corporate law at Cornell University.  Forty years ago the average American public company reinvested 40 percent of its profits into its business. Today, due in part to share repurchases, reinvestment is typically less than 15 percent, Stout said.....</div></div></div>8/15<h3 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 5px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; letter-spacing: -1px; line-height: 1em; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Leaked internal memos reveal a coordinated, decades-long disinformation campaign.</h3><div>
</div><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">by <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/node/1381" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 1px 1px 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Elliott Negin</a><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">When internal documents revealed earlier this year that ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel interests were secretly funding scientifically discredited studies authored by climate contrarian Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, the news didn’t come as a complete surprise.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Back in 2007, a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report identified Soon—an aerospace engineer with little formal training in climatology—as one of a dozen scientists affiliated with more than 40 ExxonMobil-funded think tanks that then constituted the backbone of the climate change–denier PR machine. Soon, who erroneously claims the sun is largely responsible for global warming, produced work for at least five of these ExxonMobil-backed groups, including the now infamous Heartland Institute.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">But the latest cache of documents, obtained by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, lays bare a wealth of detail that was not available eight years ago. For example, they show that Soon received his funding exclusively from fossil fuel interests, including ExxonMobil, utility giant Southern Company, and Charles Koch. He described his scientific work and congressional testimony as “deliverables” to his funders. And some of his contracts specifically dictate that the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where Soon works, not disclose the names of his funders. These internal documents, on top of what UCS had already uncovered, indisputably establish Soon’s efforts as part of a calculated climate deception campaign.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">
<h3 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 5px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; letter-spacing: -1px; line-height: 1em; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Dossiers of Deception</h3><div>pm dl doc </div><div>
</div><div>http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.Vc98KflViko</div><div>
</div><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Willie Soon, however, is just a small part of a much bigger story, according to a new UCS report, <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/node/5730" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 1px 1px 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The Climate Deception Dossiers</a>. After spending nearly a year reviewing and analyzing a wide range of internal corporate and trade group documents, a team of UCS researchers has, for the first time, compiled a broader tale of climate deception. <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The Climate Deception Dossiers draws upon evidence culled from 85 documents that were pried loose by leaks, lawsuits, and FOIA requests.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Spanning nearly three decades, these documents reveal that the world’s largest fossil fuel companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, coal giant Peabody Energy, and Shell—were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to sow doubt and promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong. Taken together, the documents show that these six companies, in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute (API)—the oil and gas industry’s premier trade association—and a host of front groups, have colluded to intentionally deceive the public; their corporate officials have known for at least two decades that their products are harmful; and their disinformation campaign continues today—despite the fact that most of the companies now publicly acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change.<div class="caption mceTemp draggable" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><div class="caption-inner" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><img src="http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2015/07/su15-climate-dossiers-papers.jpg" alt="" width="752" height="505" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;" /><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;" /><p class="caption-text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">A team convened in 1998 by the American Petroleum Institute—the country’s largest oil trade association whose member companies include BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell Oil—outlined a road map for climate deception including a plan to cultivate purportedly independent scientists as climate misinformers. The campaign would achieve “victory,” according to the memo, when “average citizens” believed that the realities of climate science were uncertain.</div></div><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The collected documents reveal a variety of deceitful tactics, including creating front groups, secretly funding purportedly independent scientists such as Soon, and even forging letters from nonprofit groups to try to influence members of Congress. But you don’t have to rely on UCS’s interpretation. All 340 pages of the documents in seven “<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/node/5730" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 1px 1px 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">deception dossiers</a>” are available online, so you can read them and reach your own conclusions.<h3 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 5px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; letter-spacing: -1px; line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">A Damning Paper Trail</h3><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The 340 pages include not only Soon’s contracts, but also a 1998 API disinformation road map memo as well as a 2014 Western States Petroleum Association memo on creating phony grassroots consumer groups to challenge California’s climate policies.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">One eye-opening, formerly secret document reveals that scientific experts commissioned by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC)—a coalition of 50 U.S. corporations and trade groups including British Petroleum (now BP), Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Mobil, and Shell—warned that heat-trapping gases were indeed causing global warming. Regardless, the GCC continued to conduct a multimillion-dollar lobbying and public relations campaign to undermine national and international efforts to address global warming.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">One of the GCC’s “backgrounders” for legislators and journalists, for example, claimed “the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood” and emphasized that “scientists differ” on the issue. But the 17-page, internal 1995 GCC primer written by the companies’ own scientists states: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO<span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; height: 0px; line-height: 1; position: relative; top: 0.3em; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">2 on climate <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">is well established and cannot be denied [emphasis added].” The primer’s lead author, Leonard S. Bernstein, a staff scientist at Mobil Oil, would later participate as a lead author of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports in 2001 and 2007.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">One draft version of the primer even addressed and dismissed the major arguments made by climate change contrarians, such as the “solar variability” argument touted by Soon. “The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes,” the draft stated, “but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.” This section was deleted from the primer’s final version.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Three years later, the API set up what it called the Global Climate Science Communications Team to try to derail the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international agreement signed by 192 countries—but not the United States—to meet binding carbon emissions reduction targets. A leaked 1998 campaign memo from this team, cowritten by representatives of the API and API members Chevron and Exxon, laid out a road map for climate deception largely based on the tobacco industry’s strategy to stave off government regulation by deceiving the public about smoking hazards.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Echoing that strategy—encapsulated in the notorious internal tobacco industry memo claiming “Doubt is our product”—the API memo states: “Victory will be achieved when: average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science.” The API team planned to emphasize “uncertainties” in climate science at least partly by identifying, recruiting, and funding previously unaffiliated scientists. After all, the memo notes, such scientists would have more credibility with reporters and the public than those already known to be working with the fossil fuel industry.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">What makes the secret API memo so revealing is how closely its instructions seem to have been carried out in the Soon case. One of the API memo’s contributors, Robert Gehri, even negotiated one of Soon’s contracts on behalf of his industry backers. All told, Soon received more than $1.2 million from fossil fuel interests over the last decade and failed to disclose that conflict of interest in most of the scientific papers that money underwrote. More than $400,000 came from a subsidiary of the Southern Company, a large utility holding company with a fleet of coal-fired power plants. ExxonMobil gave Soon $335,000. The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation kicked in another $230,000. The API, meanwhile, contributed more than $100,000.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">What did they get for their money? The papers conclude that solar activity is the main cause of global warming and that carbon emissions have had little or no impact. Despite the speciousness of Soon’s findings, members of Congress—notably Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe—routinely cite his work to argue that climate science is a hoax.<div class="caption mceTemp draggable" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><div class="caption-inner" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><img src="http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2015/07/su15-climate-dossiers-chart.gif" alt="" width="505" height="417" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;" /><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;" /><p class="caption-text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Although the Industrial Revolution began more than 250 years ago, more than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released since 1988—after major fossil fuel companies knew about the harm their products were causing.</div></div><h3 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 5px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; letter-spacing: -1px; line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Holding the Perpetrators Accountable</h3><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The tobacco industry successfully stalled meaningful regulations for decades. The fossil fuel industry has been using virtually the same strategy, at least when it comes to federal legislation. Meanwhile, as the fossil fuel companies’ deception campaign has continued, we’ve taken a heavy toll in rising temperatures and a host of climate impacts.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">As the new UCS report notes, recent research has documented that 90 state- and privately owned corporations alone have produced and marketed the fossil fuels and cement responsible for nearly two-thirds of the world’s industrial heat-trapping carbon emissions over the past two and a half centuries. Of these, 50 are investor-owned coal, oil, and natural gas companies, including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Peabody, and Shell. Furthermore, nearly 30 percent of all industrial emissions can be traced to just <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">20 investor- and state-owned companies.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">What’s more, the rate of carbon emissions has increased dramatically in our rapidly industrializing world. As a result, more than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released into the atmosphere since 1988—<em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">after major fossil fuel companies indisputably knew about the harm their products are doing to the climate.<h3 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 5px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; letter-spacing: -1px; line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">What Is to Be Done?</h3><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">There are a number of potential ways to hold large industrial polluters accountable for their actions. Shareholder engagement, divestment campaigns, and state court litigation could all play an important role in forcing them to take responsibility for their emissions, ending their disinformation campaigns, and even requiring them to pay reparations to cover the cost of climate damages, preparedness, and mitigation. The most effective tactics remain a subject for debate. But, as the picture of the fossil fuel companies’ efforts to deceive the public becomes clearer, it is high time to hold these companies accountable for their actions and the damage they’ve done.==6/15Oil companies are pretty much the last ally you'd think of when it comes to advancing big-picture solutions to climate change. These are the companies, after all, whose product is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change" target="blank" style="line-height: 25px; text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">responsible</a> for causing a significant amount of climate change in the first place—and pretty much every proposed fix for global warming necessarily involves burning less oil.So it came as a bit of a surprise Monday when six of the leading European oil companies, including BP and Shell, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/01/europe-carbon-un-idUSL1N0YN08L20150601" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">unveiled a letter</a> addressed to the United Nations climate chief calling for a price on carbon emissions (read the full letter below)."We believe that a price on carbon should be a key element" of ongoing UN-led international climate negotiations, the letter said. This week representatives from nearly 200 countries are meeting in Bonn, Germany, to prepare for a summit in Paris this winter where they hope to produce a powerful global accord on fighting climate change. The letter called on the world's governments to create new national carbon markets where they don't currently exist (like most of the United States, for example), and to eventually link those markets internationally.
Most environmental economists and policy wonks agree that making companies pay for their carbon pollution—whether through a tax or a cap-and-trade system—is a fundamental step for any meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The basic idea is that making carbon pollution expensive will drive big polluters to clean up. Policies like this are already gathering steam across the globe, from <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/02/cap-and-trade-countries" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Canada to China.</a> (California and a few Northeast states have regional carbon markets, but a national carbon price is still a non-starter in the US Congress.) Recently, Australia <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/03/australia-emissions-carbon-tax-chart" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">demonstrated just how effective carbon pricing</a> can be, in a counterintuitive way: Carbon emissions dropped immediately after the country implemented a carbon tax, then jumped right back up when the tax was repealed.As Bloomberg Business pointed out, the letter is "<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-01/europe-s-largest-oil-producers-make-joint-call-on-climate-action" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">unprecedented</a>," in that it's the first time a group of major oil companies have banded together to advocate for a serious climate change policy. It was<a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/major-oil-companies-letter-to-un/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">welcomed by the UN's top climate official</a>, Christiana Figueres, who said that the "oil and gas industry must be a major part of the solution to climate change."If Monday's letter is any clue, oil companies are reading the writing on the wall, and they know that one way or another, it's time to start planning for a future when carbon pollution is more expensive and tightly regulated. Well, some oil companies: Conspicuously absent from the letter are any US oil companies, like Chevron or ExxonMobil; all the signatories are European. In fact, just last week Exxon chief Rex Tillerson <a href="http://oilpro.com/post/13695/exxonmobil-isnt-going-to-fake-rex-tillerson-takes-40-year-smear-o" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">implicitly blasted his European peers</a> for cozying up to the UN on climate issues, saying his company wouldn't "fake it" on climate change and that investing in renewable energy is tantamount to "losing money on purpose."The head of French oil giant Total addressed the cross-Atlantic schism in <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/01/europe-carbon-un-idUSL1N0YN08L20150601" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">comments to Reuters</a>, saying that the European companies were set on throwing their weight behind carbon pricing "without necessarily waiting for an American to come on board."Although carbon pricing "obviously adds a cost to our production and our products," the letter says, the companies would prefer consistency and predictability over the patchwork of policies that exists now. In other words, it's easier to justify and plan investments in lower-carbon projects, such as replacing coal with natural gas, when carbon prices are stable and "even-handed," the letter said. At the same time, these companies have come under <a href="http://tcktcktck.org/2015/04/shareholders-urge-fossil-fuel-giants-to-act-on-climate-change/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">increasing pressure from shareholders</a> to address how they'll stay profitable in the future, as restrictions on carbon emissions are tightened.To that end, a few of the signatories already have their own <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/12/chart-how-much-do-companies-charge-themselves-climate-pollution" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">internal "shadow" carbon price</a>, where investment options are calculated with a hypothetical carbon price added in, as a way of anticipating future policies.Still, progressive-sounding statements notwithstanding, oil companies are oil companies, and the letter gives no indication that any of them have plans to replace fossil fuels as their primary product. Shell, for one, is just weeks away from a <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/05/obama-just-gave-shell-green-light-drill-arctic" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">new foray into offshore drilling</a> in the Arctic. And according to <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-01/europe-s-largest-oil-producers-make-joint-call-on-climate-action" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Bloomberg</a>, the European companies are no better than their American counterparts in terms of their actual carbon footprint. So it remains to be seen how committed the companies will be to supporting sweeping changes to the global energy system, or if letters like this are just a clever way to stay relevant as the international climate talks forge ahead. Either way, the paradox of a corporation calling for a carbon price while still pursuing fossil fuel extraction is just more evidence that the free market won't fix climate change voluntarily—governments have to create new policies, like an international carbon price, that energy companies can't evade.Here's the letter:

==

<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/30/dirty-money-dirty-fuels-politics/" onclick="gaq.push(['trackEvent', 'outbound-article-', 'http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/30/dirty-money-dirty-fuels-politics/', 'Dirty Money, Dirty Fuels: Why Money in Politics Matters to the Environment']);" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Dirty Money, Dirty Fuels: Why Money in Politics Matters to the Environment</a>

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">The oil and gas industries are among the worst offenders. Between 2009 and 2010, the report estimates that they spent $347 million on lobbying and campaign contributions, and in return netted a handsome $20 billion in federal subsidies. Most of these came in the form of <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-27/obama-targets-72-billion-business-tax-break-republicans-balk.html" onclick="gaq.push(['trackEvent', 'outbound-article', 'http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-27/obama-targets-72-billion-business-tax-break-republicans-balk.html', 'accounting gimmicks']);" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">accounting gimmicks</a><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;"> that help hide corporate profits and obscure tax breaks that help cover <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=all&r=2&&gwh=C602FFA31E6B8FE9DC2FFDA02D6A7985&gwt=pay" onclick="gaq.push(['trackEvent', 'outbound-article', 'http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=all&r=2&&gwh=C602FFA31E6B8FE9DC2FFDA02D6A7985&gwt=pay', 'drilling ']);" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">drilling </a><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">and <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2012/02/08/keystone-xl-benefits-from-taxpayer-subsidies/" onclick="gaq.push(['trackEvent', 'outbound-article', 'http://priceofoil.org/2012/02/08/keystone-xl-benefits-from-taxpayer-subsidies/', 'refining ']);" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">refining </a><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">costs. Because of loopholes like these, the actual taxes paid by most big energy companies fall <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/05/02/62098/big-oil-profits-and-tax-breaks-remain-high-despite-sequestration-cuts/" onclick="gaq.push(['trackEvent', 'outbound-article', 'http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/05/02/62098/big-oil-profits-and-tax-breaks-remain-high-despite-sequestration-cuts/', 'well below']);" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">well below</a><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;"> the top corporate rate of 35 percent.---

<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/30/dirty-money-dirty-fuels-politics/">http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/30/dirty-money-dirty-fuels-politics/</a>

What if fighting dirty money in our elections was the key to fighting dirty fuels in our economy?

That’s the question asked in a recent <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2014/04/23/polluting-democracy-environment-dirty-fuels-money-politics/" onclick="javascript:gaq.push(['trackEvent','outbound-article','http://priceofoil.org']);" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">report </a>released by the Sierra Club and Oil Change International. From the perspective of the <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/26/bill-moyers-global-fossil-fuel-divestment/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">fossil fuel industry</a>, political contributions are just another form of investment. The only difference is that, for the millions polluters spend on elections, they see billions in bonus profits.

As the report says, “The return these polluters are getting on these political investments—in the form of billions in corporate tax handouts—exceed 5,000 percent, demonstrating that Congress remains the best ‘investment’ possible for the coal, oil, and gas industries.”

The oil and gas industries are among the worst offenders. Between 2009 and 2010, the report estimates that they spent $347 million on lobbying and campaign contributions, and in return netted a handsome $20 billion in federal subsidies. Most of these came in the form of <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-27/obama-targets-72-billion-business-tax-break-republicans-balk.html" onclick="javascript:gaq.push(['trackEvent','outbound-article','http://www.bloomberg.com']);" target="blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">accounting gimmicks</a> that help hide corporate profits and obscure tax breaks that help cover <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=all&r=2&&gwh=C602FFA31E6B8FE9DC2FFDA02D6A7985&gwt=pay" onclick="javascript:gaq.push(['trackEvent','outbound-article','http://www.nytimes.com']);" target="blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">drilling </a>and <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2012/02/08/keystone-xl-benefits-from-taxpayer-subsidies/" onclick="javascript:gaq.push(['trackEvent','outbound-article','http://priceofoil.org']);" target="blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">refining </a>costs. Because of loopholes like these, the actual taxes paid by most big energy companies fall <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/05/02/62098/big-oil-profits-and-tax-breaks-remain-high-despite-sequestration-cuts/" onclick="javascript:gaq.push(['trackEvent','outbound-article','http://www.americanprogress.org']);" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">well below</a> the top corporate rate of 35 percent.

You would think that at a time when both Democrats and Republicans are preoccupied with deficits and debt, cutting subsidies for polluters should be an easy move. After all, these are some of the most profitable companies in world history; surely they need government support like Bill Gates needs food stamps. The fact that many of these giveaways are nearly a <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-renewable-energy-tax-breaks" onclick="javascript:gaq.push(['trackEvent','outbound-article','http://www.motherjones.com']);" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">century old</a>, dating from a time when fossil fuel extraction was a much riskier game, only adds to their irrelevance. At a time of significant fiscal strain, decades-old free money for rich polluters should be the first thing on the chopping block.

Unfortunately, in the new world of campaign finance born after <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all&r=0" onclick="javascript:gaq.push(['trackEvent','outbound-article','http://www.nytimes.com']);" target="blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Citizens United</a> and supercharged earlier this month by <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/02/supreme-court-mccutcheon-v-fec/" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">McCutcheon vs. FEC</a>, money speaks much louder than fiscal and environmental sanity. The report points out that solid majorities of Americans support action on climate change, investment in renewable energy, and a repeal of fossil fuel subsidies. And yet, Congress is arguably in its most rabidly anti-environment phase in U.S. history, voting repeatedly to block action on climate change, cut support for renewable energy, and hobble enforcement of clean air and water provisions.

The only way to solve this disconnect is through a new system of public financing. As such, the Sierra Club and Oil Change International are throwing their weight behind the recently sponsored <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8977407" onclick="javascript:gaq.push(['trackEvent','outbound-article','http://www.commoncause.org']);" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Government By The People Act</a>, which would allow federal candidates to receive money from small donors matched on a six-to-one basis. This would not end money in politics, or even strip polluters of their ability to purchase influence.

Winning those fights has to be part of a much <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/mitch-mcconnell-citizens-united_n_3480083.html" onclick="javascript:gaq.push(['trackEvent','outbound-article','http://www.huffingtonpost.com']);" target="blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">longer campaign</a> against corporate personhood and the idea of money as free speech. But in the meantime, it would give candidates who share the increasingly pro-environment sentiments of the American people a chance to be heard. Friends of the Earth <a href="http://www.foe.org/news/blog/2014-04-government-by-the-people-act-takes-political-power-back" onclick="javascript:gaq.push(['_trackEvent','outbound-article','http://www.foe.org']);" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">supports the Government By The People Act</a> and its vision for a more healthy and just world.

——–

YOU ALSO MIGHT LIKE

<a itemprop="url" href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/02/supreme-court-mccutcheon-v-fec/" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Supreme Court Chooses Dark Money Billionaires Over Environment</a>

<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/28/tom-steyer-koch-brothers-climate-debate/" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Activist Tom Steyer Challenges Koch Brothers to Climate Debate</a>

<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/26/bill-moyers-global-fossil-fuel-divestment/" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Climate Leaders Tell Bill Moyers About The Need For Global Fossil Fuel Divestment</a>

===

big pict  exxon china

<a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175848/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_what%27s_big_energy_smoking/#more">http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175848/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_what%27s_big_energy_smoking/#more</a>

---

kklare: tom disp

As oil and gas have proven unexpectedly abundant and affordable, major energy consumers are planning to rely on them more -- and on renewable sources of energy less -- to meet their future requirements.  As a result, the promises we once heard of a substantial decline in fossil fuel use (along with a corresponding boom in renewables) are fading.  According to the <a href="http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/index.cfm">most recent projections</a> from the U.S. Department of Energy, global fossil fuel consumption is expected to grow by an astonishing 40% by 2035, jumping from 440 to 615 quadrillion British thermal units.

While the combined share of total world energy that comes from fossil fuels will decline slightly -- from 84% to 79% -- they will still dominate the global energy marketplace for decades to come.  Renewables, according to these projections, will continue to represent only a small fraction of the total.  If this proves to be accurate, there can be only one plausible outcome: vastly increased carbon emissions leading to rising temperatures and the sort of<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/03/climate-change-report_n_4207358.html">catastrophic climate change scenarios</a> that now seem almost impossible to imagine.

Think of it this way: in our world, the gravitational pull of carbon exerts itself every minute of every day, shaping the energy decisions of individuals, companies, institutions, and governments.  This pull is leading to defeat in the global struggle to slow the advance of severe climate change and is reflected in three recent developments in the energy news: a declaration of surrender by BP, a major setback in the European Union, and a strategic end-run by Canadian tar sands companies.

===

subsidies:

<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/09/1423351/oil-zero-subsidies/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/09/1423351/oil-zero-subsidies/</a>

Despite ranking among the <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/11/05/43995/how-big-oil-spent-part-of-its-90-billion-in-profit-so-far-in-2012/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">most profitable</a> corporations in the world, Big Oil benefits from $4 billion in annual tax breaks. It fights to maintain them through aggressive <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/28/1225341/oil-2014-election/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">political donations, lobbying, and heavy ad spending</a>, but also employs another tactic: Pretending these tax breaks don’t exist.

“The oil and gas industry gets no subsidies, zero, nothing,” API President <a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/hands-off-oil-industry-warns-government/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Jack Gerard</a> said on Tuesday. “We get cost-recovery benefits, much like other industries. You can go down the road of allowing economic activity, generating hundreds of billions to the government, or you can take the alternative route by trying to extract new revenue from industry by increasing their cost to do business.”

Tax deductions are indeed subsidies, as API admitted in a document that labeled “subsidies for alternative fuels” as <a href="http://www.api.org/_{/media/Files/Publications/Catalog/20PES.ashx}" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">“preferential tax treatment.”</a> And the oil industry’s $4 billion preferential treatment is written permanently into the tax code. <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/news/2011/05/05/9663/big-oils-misbegotten-tax-gusher/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">These include:</a>

Percentage depletion allowance: lets companies deduct the costs of an oil or gas well, about <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/26/news/economy/oil_tax_breaks_obama/index.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">15 percent</a>, from its taxes.

Domestic manufacturing tax deduction: Allows oil companies to collect $1.8 billion each year, even though there are vast differences between oil and traditional U.S. manufacturing. It is a benefit that was never intended for them, according to Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, who said Congress<a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/news/2011/05/05/9663/big-oils-misbegotten-tax-gusher/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">included</a> oil producers “almost inadvertently.”

The foreign tax credit: Oil companies overwhelmingly fall into the category of companies that can claim credits for payments to foreign governments.

Expensing intangible drilling costs: For over a century, oil companies have written off wages, fuel, repairs, and hauling costs.

</blockquote>

ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips have paid federal tax rates well below the 35 percent top corporate rate, a far cry from paying <a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/hands-off-oil-industry-warns-government/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">“more than our fair share”</a>. ExxonMobil, for instance, paid a 13 percent tax rate in 2011, after drilling deductions and benefits, and 14 percent on average between 2008 and 2010.

The record-high gas prices of 2012 reinforce the decades of data showing domestic drilling has <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/02/1385431/average-us-gasoline-prices-hit-record-high-in-2012/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">very little impact</a> on gas prices. At the same time, the Big Five companies are on track to collect more than $100 billion profit this year.

===

ok sorta unfair to say 5 co's <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell for global warming?  put out 12.5% of GHG, but

..."

In their haste to carp about spin, the critics were all too quick to gloss over the debilitating role fossil fuel companies have played over the last 15 years to quash U.S. efforts to reduce carbon emissions. During that time, the coal, oil and gas conglomerate <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/" target="hplink" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; color: rgb(57, 152, 0); outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Koch Industries</a>,<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html" target="hplink" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; color: rgb(57, 152, 0); outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">ExxonMobil</a>, and other companies lavished tens of millions of dollars on a network of think tanks, advocacy groups and academic centers to sow doubt about climate science and attack renewable energy. They also plied federal candidates with more than $300 million in campaign contributions and spent more than $105 million on lobbying, according to Federal Election Commission <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/" target="_hplink" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; color: rgb(57, 152, 0); outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">data</a> compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

In keeping with their outsized roles, Koch Industries and ExxonMobil spent more on <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01" target="hplink" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; color: rgb(57, 152, 0); outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">campaign contributions</a> and <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=2014&ind=E01" target="hplink" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; color: rgb(57, 152, 0); outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">lobbying</a> than any other fossil fuel company this year. How does that translate into policy? As I pointed out in a December 9 <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-koch-brothers-are-sti_b_4396033.html" target="_hplink" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; color: rgb(57, 152, 0); outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">blog</a>, 34 of the 52 signatories on a recent "Dear Colleague" letter organized by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) calling for killing a key wind industry tax break received Koch contributions during the last two or three campaign cycles. Thirteen of them also cashed checks from ExxonMobil. And except for two congressmen who didn't take any energy industry money, the signatories received sizable contributions from a number of other corporations that compete with wind, including coal barons Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources; and oil and gas giants Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Valero Energy....

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/whos-to-blame-for-climate_b_4477153.html?utm_hp_ref=climate-change">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/whos-to-blame-for-climate_b_4477153.html?utm_hp_ref=climate-change</a>

==

<strong style="font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.5938px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">AMY GOODMAN:<span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.5938px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Today in our headlines we talked about house legislation that’s been passed that does not look like it will make it through the Senate and President Obama has promised to veto it. But, I wanted to see how this fits in with this picture. Among the legislation that’s been passed would be a provision that would impose a $5,000 fee on anyone filing an official protest against an oil drilling project....

Blackwater essentially wanted to be the espionage arm of Monsanto. So, they did some work together. We have fragmentary information about their work together. So, and then, there’s been a lot of activity in the oil and the chemical — from oil and chemical companies. So, Dow Chemical did extensive espionage against Greenpeace. Shell has done some espionage as well, so has BP.

Chevron is sort of an interesting case. They have been hit with a $9.5 billion fine related to their pollution they — that Texaco, which they purchased, conducted, spilled in Ecuador. So, Chevron tried to, through a private investigative firm, giant private investigative firm called Kroll tried to hire a journalist who’s name was Mary Cuddehe to essentially act as a corporate spy for Chevron and to try to discredit a public health study about the effects of the oil spill. So, they tried to hire her. She said no and then she just wrote this totally wonderful, charming piece about Kroll’s efforts in The Atlantic a few years ago.

==

oil change int'l: 234 cong vote for oil ot 42m$, 193 nays got 8m$

both boener and Mcconnel got over 1 mil in their congr career

===

<table><tbody><tr><td>Total Amount:</td><td align="right">$34,177,399</td><td> </td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Total to Democrats:</td><td align="right">$8,561,172</td><td>(25%)</td></tr><tr><td>Total to Republicans:</td><td align="right">$25,587,227</td><td>(75%)</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Number of PACs making contributions:</td><td class="number">275</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=E08&cycle=2012">Electric Utilities</a>: $13,206,203

37% to Dems / 62% to Repubs</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=E09&cycle=2012">Environmental Svcs/Equipment</a>: $465,870

53% to Dems / 47% to Repubs</td></tr><tr><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=E11&cycle=2012">Fisheries & Wildlife</a>: $167,612

26% to Dems / 74% to Repubs</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=E04&cycle=2012">Mining</a>: $3,471,950

13% to Dems / 87% to Repubs</td></tr><tr><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=E07&cycle=2012">Misc Energy</a>: $1,607,835

46% to Dems / 53% to Repubs</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=E01&cycle=2012">Oil & Gas</a>: $15,008,279

14% to Dems / 86% to Repubs</td></tr><tr><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=E10&cycle=2012">Waste Management</a>: $249,650

33% to Dems / 67% to Repubs</td></tr></tbody></table>

===

<a href="http://climateprogress.org/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Climate Progress</a> [1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/emily-atkin" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Emily Atkin</a> [2]

<h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">What A Year: 45 Fossil Fuel Disasters the Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know About</h1>

</div>

</div>

<div class="story-date">December 18, 2013  |  </div>

While coal, oil, and gas are an integral part of everyday life around the world, 2013 brought a stark reminder of the inherent risk that comes with a fossil-fuel dependent world, with numerous pipeline spills, explosions, derailments, landslides, and the death of <a href="http://www.msha.gov/fatals/fabc2013.asp" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">20 coal miners</a> [3] in the U.S. alone.

Despite all this, our addiction to fossil fuels will be a tough habit to break. The federal Energy Information Administration in July <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/28/2362611/absent-climate-policies-coal-use-soars-in-coming-decades-eia-report-says/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">projected</a> [4] that fossil fuel use will soar across the world in the come decades. Coal — the dirtiest fossil fuel in terms of carbon emissions — is <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/16/3067921/global-coal-demand-china/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">projected to increase</a> [5] by 2.3 percent in coming years. And in December,<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/11/3048001/oil-demand-higher-previously-thought/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the EIA said</a>[6] that global demand for oil would be even higher than it had projected, for both this year and next.

Here is a look back at some of the fossil fuel disasters that made headlines in 2013, along with several others that went largely unnoticed.

Pipelines

March 29: An ExxonMobil pipeline carrying Canadian Wabasca heavy crude from the Athabasca oil sands ruptures and spills thousands of barrels of oil in Mayflower, Arkansas. The ruptured pipeline <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/02/1810571/exxons-duck-killing-pipeline-doesnt-pay-taxes-to-oil-spill-cleanup-fund/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">gushed 210,000</a> [7] gallons of heavy Canadian crude into a residential street and forced the evacuation of 22 homes. Exxon was hit with a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/08/2914881/exxon-pipeline-spill-fine/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">paltry $2.6 million fine</a> [8] by federal pipeline safety regulators for the incident in November — just 1/3000th of its third quarter profits.

May 20: Underground tar sands leaks start popping up in Alberta, Canada, and <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/alberta-tar-sands-still-leaking" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">do not stop</a> [9] for at least five months. In September the company responsible was ordered to drain a lake so that contamination on the lake’s bottom can be cleaned up. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/25/2676791/remember-the-tar-sands-leaks-that-no-one-knew-how-to-stop-in-july-theyre-still-leaking/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As of September 11</a> [10], the leaks had spilled more than 403,900 gallons — or about 9,617 barrels — of oily bitumen into the surrounding boreal forest and muskeg, the acidic, marshy soil found in the forest.

July 30: About <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/10210233/Crude-oil-coats-popular-resort-beach-in-Thailand-after-pipeline-leak.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">50 tons of oil</a> [11] spills into the sea off Rayong province of Thailand from a leak in the pipeline operated by PTT Global Chemical Plc. It was the fourth major oil spill in the country’s history.

August 13: An ethane and propane pipeline belonging to Tesoro Corp. running beneath an Illinois cornfield <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/illinois-pipeline-blast-sends-flames-90-metres-into-air-1.1397611" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ruptures and explodes</a> [12]. Residents heard a massive blast and then saw flames shooting <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/13/2457691/cornfield-explosion-in-western-illinois/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">300 feet into the air</a> [13], visible for 20 miles.

September 29: A North Dakota farmer winds up discovering the <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/nd-farmer-finds-oil-spill-while-harvesting-wheat-050659313.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">largest onshore oil spill in U.S. history,</a> [14] the size of seven football fields. At least 20,600 barrels of oil leaked from a Tesoro Corp-owned pipeline onto the Jensens’ land, and it went unreported to North Dakotans for more than a week. An AP investigation <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/27/2843021/oil-spills-unreported/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">later discovered</a> [15] that nearly 300 oil spills and 750 “oil field incidents” had gone unreported to the public since January 2012.

October 7: An Oil and Natural Gas Corp. pipeline that carries crude from the offshore Mumbai High fields to India ruptures and spills at an onshore facility, but <a href="http://zeenews.india.com/business/news/companies/oil-spill-at-uran-ongc-fixes-leak-in-pipeline_86216.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">oil winds up flowing into the Arabian sea</a> [16] because of rainfall.

October 9: A natural gas pipeline explodes in northwest Oklahoma, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/oklahoma-pipeline-explosion_n_4068377.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">sparking a large fire</a> [17] and prompting evacuations. No injuries or deaths were reported.

October 30: 17,000 gallons of crude oil spill from an eight-inch pipeline <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/30/2859041/texas-koch-pipeline-spill/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">owned by Koch Pipeline Company</a> [18] in Texas. The spill impacted a rural area and two livestock ponds near Smithville and was discovered on a routine aerial inspection.

November 14: A Chevron natural gas pipeline explodes in Milford, Texas,<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-town-evacuated-after-massive-pipeline-explosion-2013-11" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">causing the town of 700 people</a> [19] to evacuate. The flames could reportedly be seen for miles.

November 22: An oil pipeline explodes in Qingdao, China, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/22/2984501/china-pipeline-explodes/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">killing 62 and setting ocean on fire.</a> [20] The underground pipeline’s explosion opened a hole in the road that swallowed at least one truck, <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/11/uk-china-sinopec-pipeline-idUKBRE9BA0BV20131211" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">according to Reuters</a> [21], and oil seeped into utility pipes under Qingdao.

November 29: A 30-inch gas gas pipeline in a rural area of western Missouri ruptures and explodes, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/29/3005421/missouri-gas-pipeline-explosion/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">sending a 300 foot high fireball</a> [22] into the air.

Coal Mines

February 11 An <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/11/us-russia-mine%20idUSBRE91A05G20130211" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">explosion in a coal mine</a> [23] in northern Russia <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/world/europe/russia-explosion-in-coal-mine-kills-at-least-17.html?_r=0" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">kills at least 17 miners</a> [24] in a shaft saturated with methane gas. Rescue workers said 23 people had been in the shaft at the time. The blast occurred about 2,500 feet underground.

February 13: Very large landslide hits a <a href="http://www.landslideblog.org/2013/02/an-unusual-colliery-landslide-yesterday.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">colliery</a> [25] in Northern England. No injuries, but Dave Petley, a geology professor at Durham University, <a href="http://www.landslideblog.org/2013/02/an-unusual-colliery-landslide-yesterday.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">said</a> [25] it “may well be the largest and most significant landslide in the UK for a decade or more.”

February 13: A 28-year-old mining machine operator was killed when he was <a href="http://www.msha.gov/FATALS/2013/FAB13c04.asp" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">pinned between</a> [26] the tail of the remote controlled continuous mining machine and the coal rib in an underground mine in Illinois. Timothy Chamness had only been a mine machine operator for 6 months when the incident occurred.

February 14: A landslide hits the Phillippines’ <a href="http://www.emirates247.com/news/philippines/10-miners-buried-in-coal-mine-landslide-3-others-rescued-in-philippines-2013-02-14-1.495033" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">largest open coal mining pit</a> [27], burying at least 13 workers and killing at least 7. The accident was <a href="http://www.rappler.com/nation/21780-4-killed-in-semirara-landslide" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the third</a> [28] to occur in mining sites in the country over the last six months.

February 19: A large rock cliff <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281322/At-people-including-children-feared-dead-landslide-sweeps-coal-mining-village-southern-China.html?ito=feeds-newsxml" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">collapses on top of a coal mine</a> [29] in southern China, burying and killing five people, including two children. An estimated 5,000 cubic metres of rock fell on Yudong village in Kaili, in the country’s Guizhou province.

March 13: A 63-year-old man with 40 years of mining experience was killed underground when he was <a href="http://www.msha.gov/FATALS/2013/FAB13c07.asp" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">struck by a large piece of roof rock</a> [30]. The rock that fell was approximately 6 feet long by 5.5 feet wide and about 5 inches thick.

March 29 and April 1: The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Babao_Coal_Mine_explosions" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Babao Coal mine explosions</a> [31] kill 53 people in China. The coal mine company responsible, Tonghua Mining (Group) Co. Ltd., was <a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-07/12/c_132533515.htm" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">later found to have concealed</a> [32] the death toll in the incidents, additionally concealing deaths of six workers in five accidents in 2012.

May 11: Illegal mining causes an explosion in a Chinese coal mine that killed 28 and left 18 injured. China orders <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-13/china-s-sichuan-province-halts-all-coal-mines-after-explosion.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">production suspension</a> [33] at all coal mines in the southwestern province of Sichuan, China’s 16th-biggest coal producing province, after the blast.

July 16: A landslide at a coal mine in Bulgaria <a href="http://beforeitsnews.com/weather/2013/07/bulgaria-coal-mine-landslide-claims-2-2441176.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">claims the lives of two</a> [34] people who were discovered underneath 50 meters of land mass. It was the fourth major landslide in the Oranovo mine in the past eight years.

August 10: Seven people in India <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/seven-dead-in-landslide-in-odisha-coal-mine-403886" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">are killed</a> [35] after a landslide in a coal mine in the Sundergarh district of Odisha. The incident occurred while people from nearby villages were collecting coal from the “over-burdened” dump yard located near the mining area.

November 23: While working inside a coal mine in Ohio, a 32-year-old man<a href="http://www.wtov9.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/miner-dead-after-accident-at-work-site-2352.shtml" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">was killed</a> [36] when he was struck by high pressure hydraulic fluid after a valve broke. Ryan Lashley had worked at The Century Mine, which was the site of <a href="http://www.wowktv.com/story/23914545/miner-reportedly-trapped-at-century-mine-in-beallsville" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">another near-fatal accident</a> [37] that month.

November 27: A coal mine in northern China’s Shanxi Province is hit with a landslide that <a href="http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/828048.shtml#.UqoSjeI6Lyl" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">buried several excavators and kills two</a> [38] people.

December 4: Gas explodes in a coal mine early in eastern China’s Jiangxi province, <a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/12/04/Coal-mine-blast-kills-six-people-in-China/UPI-13951386212456/#ixzz2nIAFeqvw" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">killing at least six</a> [39] workers.

Offshore and Onshore Rigs

January 22: A Devon Energy natural gas rig in Utah <a href="http://fox13now.com/2013/01/22/fire-at-roosevelt-natural-gas-rig/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">catches fire</a> [40], causing evacuations for half a mile radius of the rig. No injuries are reported.

July 7: A <a href="http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201307070002" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">hydraulic fracturing operation</a> [41] at a gas well drilling pad in West Virginia explodes and injures seven people, four with potentially life-threatening burns. The explosion occurred while workers were pumping water down a well, part of the hydraulic fracturing process for recovering gas trapped in shale rock. The tanks that recover the water and chemical mixture after they return to the surface are what reportedly exploded.

July 27: BP’s <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/24/2346861/july-24-news-offshore-natural-gas-rig-ablaze-after-blowout-in-gulf-of-mexico/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Hercules 265 offshore gas rig</a> [42] in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/feed-frenzy-natural-gas-rig-explosion-19766895" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">explodes</a> [43], enveloping the rig in a cloud of gas and a <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/24/205210585/why-the-latest-gulf-leak-is-no-bp-disaster" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">thin sheen of gas in the water.</a>[44] After spewing gas for more than a day, the rig finally “<a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/25/205469533/fire-going-out-gas-leak-blocked-at-gulf-of-mexico-rig" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">bridged over</a> [45],” meaning small pieces of sediment and sand blocked more gas from escaping.

August 20: A gas rig belonging to the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan <a href="http://sciencythoughts.blogspot.com/2013/08/gas-rig-on-fire-in-caspian-sea.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">exploded in the Caspian sea</a> [46] while workers were carrying out <a href="http://blog.skytruth.org/2013/08/socar-90.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">exploratory drilling</a> [47], when it hit a pocket of gas at unexpectedly high pressure.

August 28: A “well-control incident” at an oil drilling rig in rural south Texas causes an “<a href="http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2013/aug/29/oil_rig_fire_folo_bm_083013_218438/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">intense</a> [48]” explosion after workers were drilling horizontally into the Eagle Ford Shale, causing homes to be evacuated. No injuries reported.

Train Derailments

March 27: A Canadian Pacific Railway train derails, spilling <a href="http://www.tarsandsblockade.org/tar-sands-spill-train-derailment-minnesota/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">30,000 gallons of tar sands oil</a> [49] in western Minnesota.<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/27/us-oil-train-derailment-idUSBRE92Q13U20130327?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Reuters called it</a> [50] “the first major spill of the modern North American crude-by-rail transit boom.”

July 6: A unit, 74-car freight train carrying Bakken formation crude oil <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/07/2261791/crude-oil-carrying-train-derails-and-explodes-destroying-the-center-of-a-quebec-town/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">derails in Lac-Megantic, Canada</a> [51], causing an incredibly tragic fire and explosion. Forty-two people were pronounced dead, 30 buildings downtown destroyed. Emergency responders describe a “war zone.” 2,000 people evacuated because of toxic fumes, explosions, and fires.

July 18: 24 cars of a 150-car coal train derail in Virginia, spilling more than <a href="http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/derailed-train-spills-carloads-of-coal/article_8d54929e-f01d-11e2-a62b-001a4bcf6878.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a thousand tons of coal</a> [52] along the roadside.

October 19: A train carrying crude oil and liquefied petroleum gas derails west of Alberta, Canada, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/19/us-cnrailway-derailment-idUSBRE99I04820131019" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">causing an explosion and fire</a> [53]. No injuries were reported. Nine of the derailed cars were carrying liquefied petroleum gas and four carried crude. The crude oil cars were intact and kept away from the fires with no indications of any leaks.

November 8: A 90-car train carrying North Dakota crude <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/08/2919351/alabama-oil-train-explosion/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">derails and explodes</a> [54] in a rural area of western Alabama. Flames spewed into the air on a Friday, only finally dying down by Sunday, in what the Huffington Post called “<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/alabama-oil-train-derailment_n_4252887.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the most dramatic U.S. accident since the oil-by-rail boom began</a> [55].”

December 9: 19 cars of a coal train near the Las Vegas Motor Speedway derail, <a href="http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/dec/09/train-carrying-coal-derails-in-vegas-no-injuries/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">spilling coal onto the ground</a> [56]. The train had four locomotives with 103 cars, each carrying about 75 tons of coal. The train was headed from a mine in Carbon County, Utah, to a utility company in Mojave, California.

Power Plants and Refineries

April 4: Federal safety officials eventually make Georgia Power <a href="http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2013-09-27/feds-want-119k-fine-plant-bowen-explosion" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">pay $119,000 in penalties</a> [57] after an explosion at one of its coal plants. The blast injured two people and was caused by a buildup of hydrogen and air inside a generator.

April 5: Residents near an ExxonMobil refinery begin to smell “<a href="http://rt.com/usa/louisiana-exxon-chemical-spill-362/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">burning tires and oil</a> [58]” after the refinery leaked condensate water that accumulated while the company was flaring gas. Through the leak, ExxonMobil announced that it had released 100 pounds of hydrogen sulfide and 10 pounds of benzene. According to readings at the spill site, the refinery measured 160 parts per million of hydrogen sulfide and 2 parts per million of benzene in the air.

August 8 and 15: 15,000 liters of oil spills into local streams in Cuba, after<a href="http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=98368" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">two separate instances</a> [59] at the Sergio Soto Refinery. The oil spill was the result of a negligent operator who failed to properly secure the residuals trap used to contain the hydrocarbon. While some of the oil was able to be contained, much of it was pushed upstream because of strong rainfall following the spill.

August 28: Approximately 20 gallons of partially refined petroleum from a New Jersey refinery <a href="http://www.nj.com/salem/index.ssf/2013/08/oil_spill_at_refinery_leaves_sheen_on_delaware_river.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">spills into the Delaware River</a> [60], after a leak in a heat exchanger that is part of the refinery’s crude oil processing unit. The spill was reported two hours after workers discovered it, when they realized it was going into the river.

September 10: An explosion at the Deely 1 coal power unit in Pennsylvania <a href="http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2013/09/cps-energy-analyzing-explosion-at-deely-coal-power-plant.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">caused cascade housing damage.</a> [61] The explosion happened after coal dust in a silo caught fire.

Miscellaneous

January 27: A barge carrying 668,000 gallons of light crude oil on the Mississippi River crashed into a railroad bridge. An 80,000 gallon tank on the vessel was damaged, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/27/mississippi-river-barge-crash_n_2564418.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">spilling oil into the waterway</a> [62], which prompted officials to close the river for eight miles in either direction.

September 15: Fuel tanks explode at Virgin Islands gas station, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/15/fuel-explode-virgin-islands/2816477/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">resulting in a huge blast and a fire and causing two injuries</a> [63]. The St. Thomas community of Bovoni was evacuated and traffic was diverted after the explosion.

October 1: An underground fuel reservoir explodes on a Czech Lukoil petrol station on a highway in Prague, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-01/lukoil-gas-station-explosion-kills-one-on-czech-highway.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">killing one person and injuring two</a> [64].

November 23: Five are hurt after a <a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/23/21586242-five-hurt-as-explosion-rocks-wyoming-natural-gas-field" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">gas tank near a drilling rig explodes</a> [65] in Wyoming.

December 14: <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/16/3069971/severed-fuel-pump-6000-gallon-gas-spill-alaskan-harbor/" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Thousands of gallons of gasoline spill</a> [66] into a harbor in southern Alaska on Saturday after a pump used to funnel fuel into boats is accidentally severed. The 5,500 gallon spill occurred in the small village of the village of Kake, whose residents rely on fish and subsistence to get by.

</div>

<div class="tags">See more stories tagged with:

<div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/fossil-fuels" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">fossil fuels</a> [70],</div>

<div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/energy-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">energy</a> [71]</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url">Source URL: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/45-fossil-fuel-disasters-industry-doesnt-want-you-know-about" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">http://www.alternet.org/environment/45-fossil-fuel-disasters-industry-doesnt-want-you-know-about</a></div>

oil and gas pac 2012

<table><tbody><tr class="rowTint"><td>otal Amount:</td><td align="right">$15,008,279</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Total to Democrats:</td><td align="right">$2,027,669</td><td>(14%)</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Total to Republicans:</td><td align="right">$12,969,610</td><td>(86%)</td></tr><tr><td>Number of PACs making contributions:</td><td class="number">90</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table class="sortable" id="table1"><tbody><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00236489">Koch Industries</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$1,756,000</td><td class="number">$38,000</td><td class="number">$1,718,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00121368">Exxon Mobil</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$1,679,000</td><td class="number">$140,500</td><td class="number">$1,538,500</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00389288">Chesapeake Energy</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$1,208,000</td><td class="number">$169,500</td><td class="number">$1,038,500</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00035006">Chevron Corp</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$697,000</td><td class="number">$57,500</td><td class="number">$639,500</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00109546">Valero Energy</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$661,000</td><td class="number">$42,500</td><td class="number">$618,500</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00246306">Independent Petroleum Assn of America</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$576,000</td><td class="number">$26,000</td><td class="number">$550,000</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00035691">Halliburton Co</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$489,000</td><td class="number">$36,500</td><td class="number">$452,500</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00496307">Marathon Petroleum</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$466,500</td><td class="number">$26,500</td><td class="number">$440,000</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00354753">Devon Energy</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$444,500</td><td class="number">$6,000</td><td class="number">$438,500</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00083857">Occidental Petroleum</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$390,000</td><td class="number">$40,500</td><td class="number">$349,500</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00120030">Society of Indep Gasoline Marketers</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$374,500</td><td class="number">$157,500</td><td class="number">$217,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00112896">ConocoPhillips</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$351,750</td><td class="number">$28,000</td><td class="number">$323,750</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00040394">Williams Companies</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$350,000</td><td class="number">$57,000</td><td class="number">$293,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00358366">Tesoro Corp</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$303,000</td><td class="number">$77,000</td><td class="number">$226,000</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00007450">American Gas Assn</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$297,000</td><td class="number">$103,000</td><td class="number">$193,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00093948">El Paso Corp</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$280,000</td><td class="number">$79,500</td><td class="number">$200,500</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00429662">Spectra Energy</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$269,200</td><td class="number">$81,700</td><td class="number">$180,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00231951">Anadarko Petroleum</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$224,500</td><td class="number">$23,000</td><td class="number">$201,500</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00409565">National Ocean Industries Assn</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$208,500</td><td class="number">$25,000</td><td class="number">$183,500</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00415026">American Fuel & Petrochem Manufacturers</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$208,500</td><td class="number">$34,500</td><td class="number">$171,500</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00060103">BP</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$207,000</td><td class="number">$58,000</td><td class="number">$149,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00040568">Marathon Oil</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$206,000</td><td class="number">$30,500</td><td class="number">$175,500</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00145037">AGL Resources</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$203,000</td><td class="number">$62,000</td><td class="number">$141,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00483677">American Petroleum Institute</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$199,100</td><td class="number">$42,500</td><td class="number">$156,600</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00035204">Petroleum Marketers Assn</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$174,875</td><td class="number">$50,500</td><td class="number">$124,375</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00443523">Newfield Exploration Co</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$149,000</td><td class="number">$8,500</td><td class="number">$140,500</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00435321">Nustar Energy</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$138,500</td><td class="number">$25,500</td><td class="number">$113,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00513549">Phillips 66</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$136,000</td><td class="number">$18,500</td><td class="number">$117,500</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00079681">National Propane Gas Assn</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$121,500</td><td class="number">$65,500</td><td class="number">$56,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00116145">Interstate Natural Gas Assn of America</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$113,500</td><td class="number">$37,000</td><td class="number">$76,500</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00426569">Independent Petroleum Assn/Mountn States</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$101,998</td><td class="number">$4,500</td><td class="number">$97,498</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00215384">ONEOK Inc</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$99,000</td><td class="number">$15,000</td><td class="number">$84,000</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00381954">Atmos Energy</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$93,200</td><td class="number">$14,500</td><td class="number">$78,700</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00356089">McMoRan Exploration Co</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$84,000</td><td class="number">$22,000</td><td class="number">$62,000</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00083758">National Fuel Gas Corp</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$83,000</td><td class="number">$13,500</td><td class="number">$69,500</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00479873">Noble Energy</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$73,750</td><td class="number">$25,500</td><td class="number">$48,250</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00076737">Southwest Gas</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$73,089</td><td class="number">$19,500</td><td class="number">$53,589</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00444430">Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Assn</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$70,500</td><td class="number">$7,000</td><td class="number">$63,500</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00025346">Sunoco Inc</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$67,130</td><td class="number">$31,130</td><td class="number">$36,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00172635">Bass Brothers Enterprises</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$63,000</td><td class="number">$7,500</td><td class="number">$55,500</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00279224">Apache Corp</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$62,000</td><td class="number">$0</td><td class="number">$62,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00145722">Murphy Oil</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$61,500</td><td class="number">$8,500</td><td class="number">$53,000</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00485250">America's Natural Gas Alliance</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$59,900</td><td class="number">$24,100</td><td class="number">$35,800</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00484725">Domestic Energy Producers Alliance</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$59,500</td><td class="number">$11,000</td><td class="number">$48,500</td></tr><tr class=" even"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00430157">Cheniere Energy</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$58,000</td><td class="number">$16,500</td><td class="number">$41,500</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00318766">California Independent Petroleum Assn</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName="> </a></td><td class="number">$52,500</td><td class="number">$6,000</td><td class="number"> </td></tr></tbody></table>

==

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.php?txt=E&cycle=2012

The vote was non-binding but all too telling. On Friday, the U.S. Senate voted 62 to 37 in favor of building the Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline, with 17 Democrats joining all of the Republicans. It was just an amendment to a budget plan that won’t even be going to the president’s desk, but it shows that the political class in D.C. views the pipeline very favorably — and believes voters view it very favorably too.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/22/senate-backs-keystone-pipeline-in-bipartisan-vote/">From The Washington Post</a>:

The 17 Democrats who voted yes included every single possibly vulnerable incumbent facing reelection next year, from 34-year veteran [Max] Baucus [Mont.] to first-term Sen. Mark Begich (Alaska).

Perhaps more importantly, Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.), who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, voted for the resolution. Bennet is not up for re-election until 2016, but his post requires him to raise money from the wealthy liberal community that is highly opposed to the pipeline.

Additionally, a crop of Democrats who survived difficult reelections in 2012 — Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) — all supported the GOP Keystone amendment.

</blockquote>

Did fossil-fuel money have anything to do with the vote? <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2013/03/22/statement-on-hoeven-pro-keystone-xl-amendment/">You be the judge</a>:

<blockquote>New analysis today from Oil Change International reveals that supporters of the just-passed non-binding Keystone XL pipeline amendment received 3.5 times more in campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests than those voting “no.” In total, researchers found that supporters took an average of $499,648 from the industry before voting for the pipeline, for a staggering total of $30,978,153.</blockquote>

</div>

==

markey opposes

subsidies: <a href="http://grist.org/news/can-we-afford-40-billion-gift-to-oil-companies/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter">http://grist.org/news/can-we-afford-40-billion-gift-to-oil-companies/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter</a>

===

<a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/">http://dirtyenergymoney.com/</a>

John Cornyn (R–TX)107TH–112TH CONGRESS

$2,132,385

<a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00024852&congress_num=total" class="go icon" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: initial; display: block; height: 16px; width: 16px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); position: absolute; top: 10px; right: 5px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to this profile</a>

</li>

Joe Barton (R–TX)106TH–112TH CONGRESS

$2,093,583

<a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00005656&congress_num=total" class="go icon" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: initial; display: block; height: 16px; width: 16px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); position: absolute; top: 10px; right: 5px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to this profile</a>

</li>

John Boehner (R–OH)106TH–112TH CONGRESS

$1,834,191

<a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00003675&congress_num=total" class="go icon" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: initial; display: block; height: 16px; width: 16px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); position: absolute; top: 10px; right: 5px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to this profile</a>

</li>

Mitch McConnell (R–KY)106TH–112TH CONGRESS

$1,737,008

<a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00003389&congress_num=total" class="go icon" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: initial; display: block; height: 16px; width: 16px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); position: absolute; top: 10px; right: 5px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to this profile</a>

</li>

Steve Pearce (R–NM)108TH–112TH CONGRESS

$1,526,091

<a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00012672&congress_num=total" class="go icon" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: initial; display: block; height: 16px; width: 16px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); position: absolute; top: 10px; right: 5px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to this profile</a>

</li>

Roy Blunt (R–MO)106TH–112TH CONGRESS

$1,378,480

<a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00005195&congress_num=total" class="go icon" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: initial; display: block; height: 16px; width: 16px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); position: absolute; top: 10px; right: 5px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to this profile</a>

</li>

</ul>

</div>

<h3>Search for a politician</h3>

</div>

<div>upton  <a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?can=N00004133&type=search#view=connections">http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?can=N00004133&type=search#view=connections</a></div>

Figure 6a. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Representative ($) Average contribution/congress (%) Votes in favor of fossil-fuel interests

John Barrasso (R-WY) 246,366 90

James M. Inhofe (R-OK) 189,764 94

David Vitter (R-LA) 172,732 88

Max Baucus (D-MT)   95,318 40

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) 75,800 94

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 69,252 94

Mike Johanns (R-NE) 58,750 89

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) 54,517 13

Mike Crapo (R-ID) 45,206 94

John Boozman (R-AR) 35,246 88

Mark Udall (D-CO) 35,198 11

Thomas R. Carper (D-DE) 32,766 13

Benjamin L. Cardin (D-DE) 31,207 13

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) 16,139 8

Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) 14,058 13%

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 12,336 6

Jeff Merkley (D-OR) 4,650 11

Bernard Sanders (D-VT) 1,557 7

Figure 6b. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee

Representative ($) Average contribution/congress (%) Votes in favor of fossil-fuel interests

Joe Manchin (D-WV) 448,924 50

John Hoeven (R-ND) 402,695 88

John Barrasso (R-WY) 246,366 90

Daniel Coats (R-IN) 229,018 88

Rand Paul (R-KY) 225,203 88

Bob Corker (R-TN) 211,097 83

Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA) 170,153 63

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) 164,122 81

Rob Portman (R-OH) 126,815 89

Dean Heller (R-NV) 100,393 91

Mike Lee (R-UT) 89,289 63

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)  87,060 19

James E. Risch (R-ID) 74,190 89

Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) 38,952 25

Tim Johnson (D-SD) 36,307 14

Mark Udall (D-CO) 35,198 11

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) 27,713 11

Maria Cantwell (D-WA) 21,482 19

Christopher A. Coons (D-DE) 19,262 13

Al Franken (D-MN) 19,150 11

Ron Wyden (D-OR) 18,798 6

Bernard Sanders (D-VT) 1,557 7

Source: Calculated with data from: Oil Change International (07/23/2012)

...Financing for Climate Denialists

The Kochs have provided over $60 million to groups denying climate science over the period of

1997-2010.

---

<a href="http://grist.org/news/shell-bp-join-dozens-of-companies-expressing-support-of-carbon-pricing/">http://grist.org/news/shell-bp-join-dozens-of-companies-expressing-support-of-carbon-pricing/</a>

==

kpfa 7.23 notes rt swing; south dakota one term sen proposed bill that lost by only 3 votes to break up oil co's, next day PR campaign started to ~

===

The Big Five (oil?) companies are on track to make over $100 billion in profits this year, while they collect $2.4 billion in annual tax breaks. Meanwhile, they are producing 5 percent less oil than the third quarter last year. The Big Five has spent more than $100 million lobbying Congress since 2011, and millions on campaign contributions.

<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/02/1129671/chevron-earns-19-billion-profit-so-far-this-year-spending-millions-to-elect-house-gop/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/02/1129671/chevron-earns-19-billion-profit-so-far-this-year-spending-millions-to-elect-house-gop/</a>

---

ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, <a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2012/full_list/">No. 1 and No. 2</a> on the Fortune 500 Global companies list, announced their third-quarter earnings on Thursday. Compared to last year’s earnings, both companies’ profits are down slightly — 7 percent for Exxon and 15 percent for Shell — on weaker oil prices. However, ExxonMobil and Shell earned <a href="http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_release_earnings_3q12.pdf">$9.6 billion</a> and <a href="http://www-static.shell.com/static/investor/downloads/financial_information/quarterly_results/2012/q3/q3_2012_qra.pdf">$6.1 billion</a> respectively, bringing their total 2012 profits to $35 billion for Exxon and $18.9 billion for Shell.

These two companies, along with the rest of the Big Five, continue to receive century-old annual tax breaks. At the same time, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/24/1064231/three-ways-big-oil-spends-its-profits-to-defend-oil-subsidies-and-defeat-clean-energy/">Exxon and Shell funnel</a> a portion of their dollars toward lobbying against environment and public health protections, while also funding climate denier candidates. This summer, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson said that he recognized carbon pollution causes warming, but minimized the full impact saying <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/27/507710/as-exxon-ceo-calls-global-warmings-impacts-manageable-colorado-wildfires-shutter-climate-lab/">“those consequences are manageable.”</a> Meanwhile, extreme weather damages in the U.S. alone have potentially cost <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/11/01/43504/preventing-future-frankenstorms/">up to $144 billion</a> since 2011.

Below are the highlights of where Exxon and Shell spend their earnings:

ExxonMobil:

<blockquote>– Exxon received an estimated <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/green/report/2012/07/26/11880/romney-tax-plan-many-happy-returns-for-big-oil/#.UIf368y0-SA.email">$600 million in annual tax breaks</a>. It paid just a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/26/452213/exxon-mobils-tax-rate-drops-to-13-percent-after-making-35-percent-more-profits-in-2011/">13 percent federal tax rate</a>.

– Exxon spent <a href="http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_release_earnings_3q12.pdf">$5.1 billion</a> — or 53 percent– of this quarter’s profits to buy back its own stock, which enriches the largest shareholders.

– Oil production for Exxon for Q3 in 2012 is <a href="http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_release_earnings_3q12.pdf">5 percent lower</a> than this time last year (2.1 million of barrels per day in Q3 2012 vs. 2.2 million in Q3 2011).

– In 2012 alone, Exxon spent $12.7 million lobbying Congress, according to the latest Federal Election Commission figures.

– Exxon spent $2.1 million on direct federal and congressional campaign contributions so far in the 2012 election cycle, with <a title="90" href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000129&cycle=2012" target="_blank">90 percent </a>going to Republicans.

– Some of the biggest Congressional recipients <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000129&cycle=2012">include</a> Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH).

– Exxon’s CEO Rex Tillerson’s total compensation in 2011 was <a href="http://www.forbes.com/profile/rex-tillerson-1/">$34.9 million</a>.</blockquote>

Royal Dutch Shell:

<blockquote>– Shell received a <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/green/report/2012/07/26/11880/romney-tax-plan-many-happy-returns-for-big-oil/#.UIf368y0-SA.email">$200 million annual tax break</a> in 2011.

– Shell has <a href="http://www-static.shell.com/static/investor/downloads/financial_information/quarterly_results/2012/q3/q3_2012_qra.pdf">$18.8 billion</a> in cash-on-hand.

– In the third quarter, Shell used $149 million of its profits to buy back its own stock.

– Shell’s oil production <a href="http://www-static.shell.com/static/investor/downloads/financial_information/quarterly_results/2012/q3/q3_2012_qra.pdf">decreased by 5 percent</a> compared to this time last year (1.59 million of barrels per day in 2012 vs. 1.67 million in 2011).

– Shell spent more on lobbying than the other Big Oil companies – $12.9 million so far in the 2012 election cycle – according to the latest Federal Election Commission figures.

–Shell just finished drilling top holes in <a href="http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Shell-ends-2012-Arctic-Ocean-drilling-off-Alaska-3997858.php">Arctic waters</a> for the year, after issues with its containment barge and ice flows created delays.</blockquote>

The last of the Big Five oil companies, Chevron, will release its third quarter profits Friday.

===

Despite two recent attempts, Congress has not yet been willing to deep-six subsidies to the fossil-fuel industry even though the oil industry is generating record profits and, together with the centuries-old coal industry, continuing to burden the atmosphere with carbon emissions and kill thousands of Americans a year by <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794">pumping</a> their lungs full of toxic pollution.

These past failures aside, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent Senator from Vermont, joined Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) Thursday to introduce <a href="http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/051012-EndPolluterWelfare.pdf">legislation</a> that would chop more than <a href="http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/EPW_Act_Section_by_Section.pdf">$113 billion</a> out of subsidies for the oil and coal industries over the next 10 years. Here's the announcement:

As the sponsors point out, whatever else can be said about it, the fossil-fuel energy industry has no need of taxpayer subsidies. Last year, the five largest oil

companies—BP, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, Conoco-Phillips and Shell—alone made $137 billion in profit. In the first quarter this year, their total was $33.5 billion. That's $4143 every second. Together, they spent $13.9 million lobbying Congress in that same quarter.

===

<h2 style=" margin: 20px 0px 0px 0px;">How Wall Street Drives Up Gas Prices -- Ripping Us Off and Killing Jobs</h2>

<h5 style=" margin: 0px 0px 20px 0px;">By Les Leopold, AlterNet

Posted on May 3, 2012, Printed on May 6, 2012

http://www.alternet.org/story/155193/how_wall_street_drives_up_gas_prices_--_ripping_us_off_and_killing_jobs</h5>

Gasoline prices have been falling in recent weeks, but they're still close to their five-year high after climbing steeply for three years. For every penny increase at the pump, $1.4 billion per year <a href="http://naturalresources.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=32333">leaves our collective pockets</a>, creating a drag on the sluggish “recovery.” Where does it go and what caused the price explosion at the pump?

It's a common belief that oil prices are set on the world market by supply and demand. Less supply and/or more demand causes prices to rise. Oil is getting harder to find; OPEC is holding back supply; China and India are guzzling it up; Iran is threatening to blow it up. And regulations are getting in the way of drill, baby, drill -- end of story.

But this fixation on blind market forces ignores the fact that Wall Street is financializing the commodities markets – especially oil – as it seeks new ways to pick our pockets. The same greedy swindlers who puffed up the housing bubble and then milked it dry are now hard at work doing the same with gasoline.

What is financialization and why is it coming to the oil industry?

Here’s a chilling definition provided by economist Thomas I. Palley (<a href="http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_525.pdf">PDF</a>):

<blockquote>Financialization is a process whereby financial markets, financial institutions, and financial elites gain greater influence over economic policy and economic outcomes…..Its principal impacts are to (1) elevate the significance of the financial sector relative to the real sector, (2) transfer income from the real sector to the financial sector, and (3) increase income inequality and contribute to wage stagnation. </blockquote>

In short, we’re talking about the spread and growing supremacy of financial gambling – the ability to bet on the prices of goods produced in the real economy without actually owning those goods.

The vital activities of manufacturing, resource extraction and agriculture are turned into financial instruments that can be rapidly bought and sold. More to the point, financialization allows financial gamblers to extract profits from the real economy to enrich themselves without producing any real economic value for our economy.

When markets are financialized, they offer a myriad of ways for Wall Street firms to bend or break laws to manipulate markets and haul in enormous profits. In effect, financialization extracts a hidden tax from the real economy which is then passed onto us in the form of higher prices, economic hardship and then government bailouts when it all comes crashing down.

The oil markets have become just another profitable Wall Street casino. Why? Because, as the infamous outlaw Willie Sutton said, “That’s where the money is.” Oil markets as well as other commodity markets require a certain number of speculators. Oil producers and end users go to these markets in order to lock in prices for the products they use or sell. From refiners to shippers to airlines, oil markets provide a way to obtain price certainty for a specified period of time. To make these markets function, speculators are needed to take the other side of those trades. For more than a century about 30 percent of these commodity markets involved speculators and 70 percent of the participants in terms of volume were real producers, distributors and users. That’s what a healthy commodities market looks like.

But once financialization metastasized, the proportions flipped. Now <a href="http://naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/KelleherTestimony03.21.12.pdf">70 percent of the action comes from speculators</a>, while only 30 percent comes from those who really produce, distribute and use the actual commodities. The casino has taken over.

This speculative invasion is why gasoline prices are climbing rapidly. The only question remaining is how much of the price rise is due to excess speculation. Here’s what the experts say:

<ul>

<li>The St. Louis Federal Reserve (not exactly a Marxist institution) claims that 15 percent of the rise in gasoline prices is due to Wall Street speculation (<a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2011/2011-027.pdf">PDF</a>).</li>

<li>A <a href="http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5314&Itemid=102">report</a> from the House Committee on Government Oversight claims that up to 30 percent of the rise may be due to speculators.</li>

<li>Even experts at Goldman Sachs, of all places, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/28/opinion/sanders-gas-speculation/index.html">say</a> that “excessive speculation is causing oil prices to spike by up to 40%.”</li>

<li>And Saudi Arabia, ”the largest exporter of oil in the world, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/28/opinion/sanders-gas-speculation/index.html">told the Bush administration back in 2008</a>, during the last major spike in oil prices, that speculation was responsible for about $40 of a barrel of oil.”</li>

</ul>

This flip in the balance of real economic activity and speculation is precisely what John Maynard Keynes warned us about more than 75 years ago:

"Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. The measure of success attained by Wall Street, regarded as an institution of which the proper social purpose is to direct new investment into the most profitable channels in terms of future yield, cannot be claimed as one of the outstanding triumphs of laissez-faire capitalism…."

Who are the speculators?

Senator Bernie Sanders <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/15/317330/leaked-cftc-oil-speculation-data/">released classified documents</a> revealing the names of the largest speculators in the oil markets as of 2008.

A look at the top 20 speculators reveals that only five are actually involved in producing, shipping, refining and consuming oil (Vitol, CMA, ENA, Semgroup and Emirates Oil). The other 15 are banks and investment houses – a virtual who’s who of Wall Street firms that puffed up the housing bubble and took down the economy. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup -- they all make the list.

A tale of two casinos

It’s stunning to compare the similarities between the housing bubble and the rise in oil prices. Just take a look at the two charts below. The first shows the price of a barrel of oil after eliminating the impact of inflation. You can see the price spike in the 1970s during the Iranian oil boycott, and then in the 1990s during the Persian Gulf War. Clearly, those significant geopolitical events disrupted supplies and had a real impact on the price of oil.

But look what happened when the Wall Street big boys jumped into the oil speculative business right around 2002-'03. The price of oil went bonkers. The gyrations were far more extreme than any of the previous geopolitical events. There is no rational supply-and-demand explanation that accounts for that dramatic rise. Sure, after the economy crashed in 2008 prices declined. That makes sense. But up again goes the price of oil even though we’re facing nothing like the supply and demand shifts caused by oil boycotts and wars. Then again, maybe it does indicate a new war – Wall Street versus the rest of us.

<a href="PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile1.png" target="_new">(click for larger version)</a></center>

Now take a look at the housing bubble graph – similar shape, similar timing. And that’s no coincidence. When Wall Street turns a market into an enormous casino, prices skyrocket and the economy is threatened. Wall Street did it to housing and now they’re doing it again to commodities -- especially oil.

<a href="PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile4.png" target="_new">(click for larger version)</a></center>

Wall Street oil speculators kill jobs

When Wall Street jacks up gasoline prices through its speculative activities, it has two job-killing impacts. First, it sucks money out of our pockets to pay for gasoline, which in turn means we have less money to spend on other goods and services in the real economy. It’s the equivalent of an anti-stimulus tax. As gasoline prices go up, economic demand falters and workers in the real economy are laid off.

The second impact is more complex but just as real to unemployed oil workers on the East Coast where several refineries in the Philadelphia area are being shut down even though the price of refined gasoline is rising.

Here’s where it gets tricky. The East Coast gets its oil primarily from the North Sea. That’s called Brent oil. The rest of the country gets most of its oil from the Gulf Coast. That’s called West Texas. The two kinds of oil are very similar in content and traditionally were similarly priced. Not any more.

As the chart below illustrates, a gap has emerged so that Brent oil is now significantly more expensive. This means that the oil coming into East Coast refineries is more costly to refine. But the increased cost can’t be passed on at the pump because the national prices are mostly set by the lower cost West Texas oil (and from European refineries that are dumping gasoline in the U.S. as Europe switches more and more to diesel). As a result, East Coast refinery profits are squeezed, which in turn leads to the shutdowns.

But what accounts for <a href="http://commodityhq.com/2011/crude-oil-guide-brent-vs-wti-whats-the-difference/">the split between the two prices of oil</a>? Some experts say Brent oil is becoming more expensive because other oil supplies coming into Europe from the Middle East are more vulnerable and uncertain due to the Iranian situation and the Arab Spring. Maybe so. But speculation also is at work. Because oil speculation regulations are more lax in London, it is likely that Brent oil is the raw material for a more profitable casino. As Wall Street money pours in, up go the prices...and down go the refineries and thousands of refinery workers.

<a href="PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile5.png" target="_new">(click for larger version)</a></center>

But wait, isn’t Wall Street helping the environment by driving up gasoline prices?

Without question the rise in gasoline prices moves the nation toward more fuel-efficient cars, which in turn will reduce greenhouse gas pollution. But relying on Wall Street to cause this dynamic is ridiculous, foolish and grossly unfair. First, because Wall Street speculators not only drive up prices they create price instability – rising prices followed by rapid crashes. If a recession follows, gas prices will crash and the incentive to purchase fuel-efficient cars will disappear. Second, rising gas prices without offsetting credits for low-income people are very regressive – meaning lower-income people pay a higher share of their income on fuel costs.

...

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/155193

===...

Here’s an astonishing statistic, brought to us by <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-01/oil-drilling-advocates-driving-presidenti-debate-with-ads.html">Bloomberg</a>:

<blockquote>In April, 16,991 negative ads aired in various parts of the country and 13,748 of them — or 81 percent — focused on energy, according to data provided by New York-based Kantar Media’s CMAG, which tracks advertising.</blockquote>

Energy? Really?

The details of the story make clear that the vast bulk of these negative energy ads are attack ads directed at Obama, purchased by big PACs — Americans for Prosperity, American Energy Alliance, Let Freedom Ring, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies — awash in Big Oil money.

What the hell is going on? Why is energy dominating the right’s campaign against Obama?

Is this a response to public opinion? Doesn’t seem like it:

<blockquote>According to an April 13-17 CBS News/New York Times poll, 48 percent of Americans say the economy and jobs are the most important problem facing the country today. Fuel costs, which were chosen by 3 percent, fell behind health care and the budget deficit and national debt.</blockquote>

===

<h1><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/29/454853/senators-who-voted-to-protect-oil-tax-breaks-received-23582500-from-big-oil/">Senators Who Voted To Protect Oil Tax Breaks Received $23,582,500 From Big Oil</a></h1>

By <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/author/rleber/">Rebecca Leber</a> on Mar 29, 2012 at 1:59 pm

In a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/29/454789/senate-republicans-protect-big-oil-subsidies-as-their-gasoline-profits-soar/">51-47 vote</a>, 43 Senate Republicans and four Democrats filibustered to protect $24 billion in tax breaks for Big Oil. Although a majority voted for Sen. Robert Menendez’s (D-NJ) bill, it <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00063">fell short</a> of the 60 needed. The only two Republicans to break rank were Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and retiring Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

A Think Progress Green analysis shows how oil and gas companies have funneled cash to the same senators who protected its handouts:

– The 47 senators voting against the bill have received $23,582,500 in career contributions from oil and gas. The 51 senators voting to repeal oil tax breaks have received $5,873,600.

– The senators who voted for Big Oil’s handouts received on average over four times as much career oil cash as those who voted to end them.

– Overall, Senate Republicans have taken <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/23/450941/will-senators-stand-up-for-american-consumers-or-big-oil/">$23.2 million</a> in oil and gas contributions. Democrats received $6.66 million.

– Since 2011, Senate Republicans have voted seven times for pro-Big Oil interests and against clean energy three times.

</blockquote>

</div>

===

<div class="asset-body">This spring and summer, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/05/how-much-oil-has-spilled-in-the-gulf-of-mexico.html">hundreds of millions</a> of gallons of oil seeped into the Gulf of Mexico.

Simultaneously, debate raged in Congress about offshore drilling, energy independence, "cap-and-trade" legislation and a shift away from fossil-fuel energy sources.

Nevertheless, congressional candidates and federal political committees nationwide have raked in more than <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2010&ind=E01">$17 million</a> from the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/10/oil%20and%20gas%20industry">oil and gas industry</a> so far during the 2010 election cycle -- a number on pace to easily exceed that of the most recent midterm election four years ago.

And so far this cycle, more than 20 congressional candidates have raised at least $100,000 from people and political action committees associated with the oil and gas industry, including contributions to their campaign committees and leadership PACs, according to research by the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/">Center for Responsive Politics</a>.

Although the amount of political money attributable to the oil and gas industry fluctuates, the recipients of the funds have remained relatively consistent over the years, with Republicans accumulating a majority of the industry’s campaign contributions.

Here is a chart of the top 10 Senate candidates that have received the most funding from people and political action committees associated with the oil and gas industry, including contributions to their campaign committees and leadership PACs, since January 2005, the start of their six-year election cycle, through early September:

<table class="tableizer-table"><tbody><tr class="tableizer-firstrow"><th>Candidate</th><th>Oil and Gas Total $

</th></tr><tr><td>David Vitter (R-La.)</td><td align="right">512,284</td></tr><tr><td>Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)</td><td align="right">464,500</td></tr><tr><td>Richard Burr (R-N.C.)</td><td align="right">221,250</td></tr><tr><td>Rob Portman (R-Ohio)</td><td align="right">213,258</td></tr><tr><td>Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)</td><td align="right">208,750</td></tr><tr><td>Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)</td><td align="right">196,550</td></tr><tr><td>James DeMint (R-S.C.)</td><td align="right">182,323</td></tr><tr><td>John Hoeven (R-N.D.)</td><td align="right">172,650</td></tr><tr><td>John Thune (R-S.D.)</td><td align="right">171,885</td></tr><tr><td>Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)</td><td align="right">137,450</td></tr></tbody></table>

Here is a chart of the top 10 House candidates that have received the most campaign committee and leadership PAC funding from people and political action committees associated with the oil and gas industry since January 2009, the start of their two-year election cycle, through early September:

</th></tr><tr><td>Dan Boren (D-Okla.)</td><td align="right">183,850</td></tr><tr><td>Steve Pearce (R-N.M.)</td><td align="right">166,232</td></tr><tr><td>Chet Edwards (D-Texas)</td><td align="right">158,830</td></tr><tr><td>Joe Barton (R-Texas)</td><td align="right">145,620</td></tr><tr><td>Mike Conaway (R-Texas)</td><td align="right">129,450</td></tr><tr><td>Eric Cantor (R-Va.)</td><td align="right">125,550</td></tr><tr><td>William Flores (R-Texas)</td><td align="right">117,302</td></tr><tr><td>John Fleming (R-La.)</td><td align="right">108,250</td></tr><tr><td>Mike Ross (D-Ark.)</td><td align="right">106,350</td></tr><tr><td>John Boehner (R-Ohio)</td><td align="right">104,300</td></tr></tbody></table>

Only five of the top 20 Senate candidates receiving the most funds from the oil and gas industry are Democrats. Those Democrats have received a combined $803,570 from the industry this cycle. The 15 Republican candidates on the list have collectively raised more than $2.6 million.

On the House side, 16 of the top 20 recipients of oil and gas funding are Republicans, who combined have raised more than $1.7 million this cycle. The four Democrats rounding out the list have raised a combined $534,380 -- almost as much as the $512,300 that Sen. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009659&cycle=2010">David Vitter</a> (R-La.) has raised on his own this cycle from people and political action committees associated with oil and gas interests.

</div>

<div id="more" class="asset-more">Last month, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news">OpenSecrets Blog</a> chronicled <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/oil%26gas.php">some of the ways</a> funding from the oil and gas industry is put to use in Washington. The <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/oil%26gas_tools.php?type=A&cycle=2010">“Fueling Washington” series tools</a> provide sortable data about members of Congress who have received the most money from the energy industry throughout their careers.

Rep. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005656&cycle=2010">Joe Barton</a> (R-Texas) ranks highly among recipients of oil and gas funding both throughout his career and during the current election cycle, bringing in $145,600 during the 2010 election cycle and $1.7 million since the 1990 election cycle.

Craig Murphy, a spokesperson for Barton’s campaign, expressed surprise that Barton ranked “that low,” coming in at No. 4 on the list of House candidates receiving the most funding from the oil and gas industry this cycle.    

“He’s usually No. 1,“ Murphy said. “With [Barton’s] seniority, with his geographic location and with his committee positions, it makes sense that he would be at the top of the list.”

Indeed, many of Barton’s fellow senior members of Congress, and those with committee assignments related to the oil and gas industry, rank highly on the list of top recipients of funding from the oil and gas industry.

Among Senate candidates receiving oil and gas industry contributions to both campaign committees and leadership political action committees, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00008092&cycle=2010">Sen. Blanche Lincoln</a> (D-Ark.), a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, ranks second this cycle, accumulating $464,500. Lincoln’s fellow Energy and Natural Resources Committee members Sens. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00002221&cycle=2010">Richard Burr</a> (R-N.C.) and <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00006424&cycle=2010">John McCain</a> (R-Ariz.) also rank highly. Burr is third on the list of top recipients after receiving $221,200 from the oil and gas industry this cycle and McCain comes in at No. 12, collecting $120,200. Senate Majority Leader <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922&cycle=2010">Harry Reid</a> (D-Nev.) is No. 14 after receiving $113,700 this cycle.

On the House side, Rep. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00026481&cycle=2010">Dan Boren</a> (D-Okla.), a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, is the number one recipient of oil and gas industry funding this election cycle, bringing in $183,850. Other prominent House members have also done well with oil and gas this cycle, including House Minority Leader <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003675&cycle=2010">John Boehner</a> (R-Ohio), who has received $104,300 from the industry, and House Minority Whip <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00013131&cycle=2010">Eric Cantor</a> (R-Va.), who has received $125,550.

Still, Murphy stressed that at least in Barton’s case, a track record of accepting large sums of money from oil and gas companies is not an example of special interest financial pressure eliciting changes in voting behavior or policy stances.

“It’s actually the opposite,” Murphy said. “[Barton] has had long standing policy positions, and [oil and gas companies] come to him.”</div>

<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/10/oil-and-gas-contributions-still-rising.html">http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/10/oil-and-gas-contributions-still-rising.html</a>

bill mck, grist

big blue marble apollo pix:

In fact, it’s likely that the week that photo was taken will <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/07/399708/masters-driest-first-week-of-january-us-recorded-history/" target="blank">prove</a> “the driest first week in recorded U.S. history.” Indeed, it followed 2011, which showed the greatest weather extremes in our history — <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2001" target="blank">56 percent</a> of the country was either in drought or flood, which was no surprise since “climate change science predicts wet areas will tend to get wetter and dry areas will tend to get drier.” Indeed, the nation suffered <a href="http://www.noaa.gov/extreme2011/" target="_blank">14 weather disasters</a> each causing $1 billion or more in damage last year. (The old record was nine.) Masters again: “Watching the weather over the past two years has been like watching a famous baseball hitter on steroids.”

In the face of such data — statistics that you can duplicate for almost every region of the planet — you’d think we’d already be in an all-out effort to do something about climate change. Instead, we’re witnessing an all-out effort to … deny there’s a problem.

Our GOP presidential candidates are working hard to make sure no one thinks they’d appease chemistry and physics. At the last Republican debate in Florida, Rick Santorum insisted that he should be the nominee because he’d <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/01/27/413240/rick-santorum-gingrich-and-romney-bought-into-the-global-warming-hoax/" target="_blank">caught on earlier</a> than Newt or Mitt to the global warming “hoax.”

Most of the media pays remarkably little attention to what’s happening. Coverage of global warming has <a href="http://ecowatch.org/2012/climate-coverage-dips-again-in-2011/" target="_blank">dipped 40 percent</a> over the last two years. When, say, there’s a rare outbreak of January tornadoes, TV anchors politely discuss “extreme weather,” but climate change is the disaster that dare not speak its name.

And when they do break their silence, some of our elite organs are happy to indulge in outright denial. Last month, for instance, the Wall Street Journal published <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html" target="blank">an op-ed</a> by “16 scientists and engineers” headlined “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” The article was easily <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/29/413961/panic-attack-murdoch-wall-street-journal-finds-16-scientists-long-debunked-climate-lies/" target="blank">debunked</a>. It was nothing but a mash-up of long-since-disproved arguments by people who <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201201300008" target="_blank">turned out</a> mostly not to be climate scientists at all, quoting other scientists who immediately said their actual work showed just the opposite.

It’s no secret where this denialism comes from: The fossil-fuel industry pays for it. (Of the 16 authors of the WSJ article, for instance, five had had <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201201300008" target="blank">ties to Exxon</a>.) Writers from <a href="http://www.heatisonline.org/" target="blank">Ross Gelbspan</a> to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0" target="_blank">Naomi Oreskes</a> have made this case with such overwhelming power that no one even really tries denying it any more. The open question is why the industry persists in denial in the face of an endless body of fact showing climate change is the greatest danger we’ve ever faced.

Why doesn’t it fold the way the tobacco industry eventually did? Why doesn’t it invest its riches in things like solar panels and so profit handsomely from the next generation of energy? As it happens, the answer is more interesting than you might think.

Part of it’s simple enough: The giant energy companies are making so much money right now that they can’t stop gorging themselves. ExxonMobil, year after year, pulls in more money than any company in history. Chevron’s not far behind. Everyone in the business is swimming in money.

Still, they could theoretically invest all that cash in new clean technology or research and development for the same. As it happens, though, they’ve got a deeper problem, one that’s become clear only in the last few years. Put briefly: Their value is largely based on fossil-fuel reserves that won’t be burned if we ever take global warming seriously.

When I talked about a carbon bubble at the beginning of this essay, this is what I meant. Here are some of the relevant numbers, <a href="http://capitalinstitute.org/blog/big-choice-0" target="_blank">courtesy of</a> the Capital Institute: We’re already seeing widespread climate disruption, but if we want to avoid utter, civilization-shaking disaster, many scientists have pointed to a 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) rise in global temperatures as the most we could possibly deal with.

If we spew 565 gigatons more carbon into the atmosphere, we’ll quite possibly go right past that reddest of red lines. But the oil companies, private and state-owned, have current reserves on the books equivalent to 2,795 gigatons — five times more than we can ever safely burn. It has to stay in the ground.

Put another way, in ecological terms it would be extremely prudent to write off $20 trillion worth of those reserves. In economic terms, of course, it would be a disaster, first and foremost for shareholders and executives of companies like ExxonMobil (and people in places like Venezuela).

If you run an oil company, this sort of write-off is the disastrous future staring you in the face as soon as climate change is taken as seriously as it should be, and that’s far scarier than drought and flood. It’s why you’ll do anything — including fund an endless campaigns of lies — to avoid coming to terms with its reality. So instead, we simply charge ahead. To take just one example, last month the boss of the <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175358/bill_mckibben_chamber_of-carbon" target="_blank">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a>, Thomas Donohue, <a href="http://grist.org/fossil-fuels/2012-01-12-chamber-of-commerce-pushes-civilization-ending-pollution-agenda/">called for</a> burning all the country’s newly discovered coal, gas, and oil — believed to be 1,800 gigatons worth of carbon from our nation alone.

What he and the rest of the energy-industrial elite are denying, in other words, is that the business models at the center of our economy are in the deepest possible conflict with physics and chemistry. The <a href="http://www.carbontracker.org/carbonbubble" target="_blank">carbon bubble</a> that looms over our world needs to be deflated soon. As with our fiscal crisis, failure to do so will cause enormous pain — pain, in fact, almost beyond imagining. After all, if you think banks are too big to fail, consider the climate as a whole and imagine the nature of the bailout that would face us when that bubble finally bursts.

Unfortunately, it won’t burst by itself — not in time, anyway. The fossil-fuel companies, with their heavily funded denialism and their <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=E" target="blank">record campaign contributions</a>, have been able to keep at bay even the tamest efforts at reining in carbon emissions. With each passing day, they’re leveraging us deeper into an unpayable carbon debt — and with each passing day, they’re raking in unimaginable returns. ExxonMobil last week <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/exxon-profit-tops-41-billion-despite-shaky-production/article2320687/" target="blank">reported</a> its 2011 profits at $41 billion, the second-highest of all time. Do you wonder who owns the record? That would be ExxonMobil in 2008 at $45 billion....

http://grist.org/fossil-fuels/the-great-carbon-bubble-why-the-fossil-fuel-industry-fights-so-hard/

===

===

greenpeace report on durban: <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2011/WhosHoldingUsBack-ExecSummary.pdf">http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2011/WhosHoldingUsBack-ExecSummary.pdf</a>

...There is however, a glimmer of hope on the horizon.

Despite the massive odds against it, renewable energy

has doubled in growth each year over the past decade.

It employs more than 2 million people worldwide, and

in the US already provides more jobs than coal. Despite

the global economic crisis, investment in renewable

energy hit a record $243 billion in 2010, and is expected

to exceed $3 trillion in the next decade. We have the

technology today to ensure a transition to a greener,

safer and more equitable economy. However, we won’t

be able to ensure we make the global transition soon

enough to avoid catastrophic climate change impacts and

much human suffering unless national governments take

strong measures at home and we are able to reach a fair,

-----

donor to gop offshore oil bill sponsors 5/6/11

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/05/big-oil-drilling-bill-sponsors-contributions_n_858329.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/05/big-oil-drilling-bill-sponsors-contributions_n_858329.html</a>

WASHINGTON -- The chief sponsors of a bill to expand oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and open the coastal waters of Virginia for exploration have received more than $8.8 million combined in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry, a review of campaign finance records shows.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act by a 266 to 149 margin. The measure would force the federal government to conduct three lease auctions in those areas by June 2012. It is considered the first step in a GOP-led process to loosen restrictions on offshore drilling. Authored by House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), it faces a much closer vote in the Senate as well as the stated opposition of the Obama administration.

Nevertheless, the bill's passage in the people’s chamber underscores the extent to which the political world has moved beyond the concerns over domestic drilling that arose in the wake of last year’s historic oil spill in the Gulf. It also serves as another reminder that, in the halls of Congress, certain legislative power comes with financial prowess.

A review of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that the 67 co-sponsors of the act received a combined total of at least $8,887,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry during the course of their careers. For at least ten of those members, the oil and has industry was their biggest career contributor.

The same dynamics held true for the twenty members of the freshmen House Republicans who co-sponsored the bill. Of those, five counted the oil and gas industry as their largest contributor during the 2010 campaign.

Contacted by The Huffington Post for comment, each of these congressional offices offered differing versions of the same explanation for their vote.

Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), who has received more than $92,000 from the oil and gas industry during the course of his 3-year congressional career, noted that his district encompasses the birthplace of domestic oil production.

-----

hightower

<a href="http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/2603#energy">http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/2603#energy</a>

<table><tbody><tr class="logolowdownsubheading"><td width="70%">Corporation & products</td><td width="15%">Total contribution</td><td width="15%">% to Republicans</td></tr><tr class="logolowdowndata"><td>Koch Industries (refining)</td><td>$1,911,212</td><td>93%</td></tr><tr class="logolowdowndata"><td>Exxon Mobil</td><td>$1,331,258</td><td>87%</td></tr><tr class="logolowdowndata"><td>Chevron Corp</td><td>$931,361</td><td>82%</td></tr><tr class="logolowdowndata"><td>Marathon Oil</td><td>$664,790</td><td>78%</td></tr><tr class="logolowdowndata"><td>Valero Energy</td><td>$589,500</td><td>82%</td></tr><tr class="logolowdowndata"><td>Peabody Energy</td><td>$590,284</td><td>72%</td></tr><tr class="logolowdowndata"><td>Occidental Petroleum</td><td>$569,900</td><td>77%</td></tr><tr class="logolowdowndata"><td>ConocoPhillips</td><td>$443,754</td><td>71%</td></tr><tr class="logolowdowndata"><td>Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold</td><td>$367,161</td><td>60%</td></tr><tr class="logolowdowndata"><td>Arch Coal</td><td>$363,041</td><td>72%</td></tr><tr class="logolowdowndata"><td>Halliburton</td><td>$316,280</td><td>89%</td></tr></tbody></table>

atwb:

three major oil refiners—Shell, B.P., and ConocoPhillips

<div>

The hardest choices involved the oil industry, which, by powering our transportation, is responsible for almost a third of all carbon emissions in the U.S. Under Waxman-Markey, oil companies would have to buy government permission slips, known as allowances, to cover all the greenhouse gases emitted by cars, trucks, and other vehicles. The oil companies argued that having to buy permits on the carbon market, where the price fluctuated daily, would wreck America’s fragile domestic refining industry. Instead, three major oil refiners—Shell, B.P., and ConocoPhillips—proposed that they pay a fee based on the total number of gallons of gasoline they sold linked to the average price of carbon over the previous three months. The oil companies called the idea “a linked fee.”

</div>

<div>On March 23rd, the three senators met to discuss the linked fee, which they had been arguing about for weeks. The environmental community and the White House, which rarely weighed in on its policy preferences, thought the linked fee was disastrous because it would inevitably be labelled a “gas tax.” At one meeting, Joe Aldy, a staffer on Obama’s National Economic Council, advised Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman’s staffers to kill it. According to a person involved in the negotiations, Kerry told his colleagues that the Democrats might lose their congressional majority over the issue. But Lieberman, who had first proposed the linked fee, and Graham supported it.</div>

<div>Kerry, despite his hesitations, wanted the oil companies, which had already spent millions attacking Waxman-Markey, to support his bill. So the senators proposed a deal: the oil companies would get the policy they desired if they agreed to a ceasefire. According to someone present, Kerry told his colleagues at the March meeting, “Shell, B.P., and Conoco are going to need to silence the rest of the industry.” The deal was specific. The ceasefire would last from the day of the bill’s introduction until the E.P.A. released its economic analysis of the legislation, approximately six weeks later. Afterward, the industry could say whatever it wanted. “This was the grand bargain that we struck with the refiners,” one of the people involved said. “We would work with them to engineer this separate mechanism in exchange for the American Petroleum Institute being quiet. They would not run ads, they would not lobby members of Congress, and they would not refer to our bill as a carbon tax.” At another meeting, the three senators and the heads of the three oil companies discussed a phrase they could all use to market the policy: a “fee on polluters.”</div>

<div>

<div>On March 31st, Obama announced that large portions of U.S. waters in the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic Ocean, and off the East Coast—from the mid-Atlantic to central Florida—would be newly available for oil and gas drilling. Two days later, he said, “It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore.” From the outside, it looked as if the Obama Administration were coördinating closely with Democrats in the Senate. Republicans and the oil industry wanted more domestic drilling, and Obama had just given it to them. He seemed to be delivering on the grand bargain that his aides had talked about at the start of the Administration.</div>

<div>But there had been no communication with the senators actually writing the bill, and they felt betrayed. When Graham’s energy staffer learned of the announcement, the night before, he was “apoplectic,” according to a colleague. The group had dispensed with the idea of drilling in ANWR, but it was prepared to open up vast portions of the Gulf and the East Coast. Obama had now given away what the senators were planning to trade.</div>

<div>

This was the third time that the White House had blundered. In February, the President’s budget proposal included $54.5 billion in new nuclear loan guarantees. Graham was also trying to use the promise of more loan guarantees to lure Republicans to the bill, but now the White House had simply handed the money over. Later that month, a group of eight moderate Democrats sent the E.P.A. a letter asking the agency to slow down its plans to regulate carbon, and the agency promised to delay any implementation until 2011. Again, that was a promise Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman wanted to negotiate with their colleagues. Obama had served the dessert before the children even promised to eat their spinach. Graham was the only Republican negotiating on the climate bill, and now he had virtually nothing left to take to his Republican colleagues.

</div>

<div>But the Administration had grown wary of cutting the kind of deals that the senators needed to pass cap-and-trade. The long and brutal health-care fight had caused a rift in the White House over legislative strategy. One camp, led by Phil Schiliro, Obama’s top congressional liaison, was composed of former congressional aides who argued that Obama needed to insert himself in the legislative process if he was going to pass the ambitious agenda that he had campaigned on. The other group, led by David Axelrod, believed that being closely associated with the messiness of congressional horse-trading was destroying Obama’s reputation.</div>

<h1 class="title">Energy Interests Spending Big in 2010</h1>

</div>

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

</div>

Energy interests are spending big this year, with a chunk of that money focused on tipping the scales toward candidates who might be more sympathetic to them next Congress. Energy companies have spent $68.5 million in 2010, mostly via the trade and interest groups that represent them, according to a <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/10/bigoilmoney.html">new report</a> from the left-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund. Of that total, $17.3 million was for television ads between August and October 2010.

The biggest spender was the American Petroleum Institute, which accounted for more than half of the total at over $39 million. Another deep pocket is the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), the coal front group, which spent more than $16 million. ACCCE, which was in the headlines last year for <a href="http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/bonner-letters-congressional-hearing">hiring a contractor</a> that forged letters to Congress in 2009, has been running ads in Washington, D.C., Montana, and Texas touting the virtues of coal.

Other groups, like the National Association of Manufacturers, have targeted specific Democratic lawmakers—Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, John Rockefeller and Carte Goodwin of West Virginia, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl in Wisconsin.

CAPAF has a <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/10/bigoilmoney.html">neat interactive map</a> that lets you see where these groups are spending. It's worth checking out.

</div>

<a href="http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/10/energy-interests-spending-big-2010">http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/10/energy-interests-spending-big-2010</a>

---

The graphic is only a glimpse, however, of Big Oil and Big Coal's political capital. The Center for American Progress Action Fund documents in our "<a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/dirty_money.html">Dirty Money</a>" report that the 20 biggest-spending oil, mining, and electric utility companies <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/pdf/oillobbying.xls">spent $242 million</a> on lobbying from January 2009 to June 2010. Trade associations generally opposed to clean energy policies spent another $290 million. Lobbying and advertising are just two tools in Big Oil and Big Coal's arsenal to defeat clean energy and oil-reform legislation they believe will compromise their profits.

---

Dirty Money

Lobbying activities <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/pdf/oillobbying.xls">ramped up in 2009 </a>as the House of Representatives began debate on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, or ACES. Senate deliberations began last fall and continued throughout 2010. The entire electric utility industry spent more than $264 million on lobbying alone in 2009 and the first half of 2010. Oil and gas interests spent a record $175 million lobbying in 2009—a 30 percent increase from 2008—and have spent $75 million already in 2010.

The oil, gas, and coal industries have spent <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/clean-energy-drowned-out-washington-billion-dollar-juggernaut">over $2 billion</a> lobbying Congress since 1999. These three industries combined spent a whopping $543 million on lobbying in 2009 and the first two quarters of 2010. Meanwhile, alternative energy companies spent less than $32 million on lobbying efforts in 2009 and have only spent $14.8 million this year.<a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/dirty_money.html/#_ednref1">

</a>

The 20 biggest-spending oil, mining, and electric utility companies <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/pdf/oillobbying.xls">shelled out $242 million</a> on lobbying from January 2009 to June 2010 [2]. Trade associations that generally oppose clean energy policies spent another $290 million during this time. This is over $1,800 in lobby expenditures a day for every single senator and representative.

Six of the seven companies with the largest <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/">lobbying expenditures</a> are Big Oil companies—ExxonMobil (1), ConocoPhillips (2), Chevron (3), BP (5), Koch Industries (6), and Shell (7). Their 18-month lobbying expenditures total $143 million. Their agenda varies among companies, but generally they oppose most proposals to reduce global warming pollution from oil refineries and transportation fuels. And they seek to limit companies’ liability for oil spills like the BP oil disaster.

<a href="http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/05/southern-co-takes-aim-at-renewable-energy-bill-48469">Southern Company</a>, a major utility with significant coal-fired power generation, was the fourth-largest lobbying company at nearly $20 million. The company is a longtime opponent of efforts to reduce global warming pollution. <a href="http://www.aepsustainability.com/ourissues/climate/docs/MikeMorrisWaxman-MarkeyStatement.pdf">American Electric Power</a>, or AEP, was eighth, spending nearly $10 million. AEP played a (somewhat) more positive role by attempting to shape clean energy and global warming legislation to its benefit. But it also supported efforts to prevent EPA from limiting global warming pollutants from the largest sources in the absence of congressional action.

The largest trade association working to defeat clean energy and global warming legislation is the umbrella lobby organization the Chamber of Commerce, which spent nearly $190 million during this year and a half [3]. The <a href="http://www.eei.org/newsroom/pressreleases/Releases/Pages/091215.aspx">Edison Electric Institute</a>, which represents investor-owned utilities, spent $18 million—a million dollars a month—lobbying on global warming legislation. EEI helped shape and supported <a href="http://www.eei.org/newsroom/pressreleases/Releases/Pages/090626.aspx">ACES</a> and the <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/eea_20100513_1563.php">American Power Act</a> (subscription only), and it has <a href="http://www.plattsenergyweektv.com/story.aspx?">taken no position</a> on halting EPA from reducing global warming pollution.

The <a href="http://www.api.org/">American Petroleum Institute</a>, or API—the trade association and lobbying arm for the biggest oil and gas producers—spent $11 million to lobby Congress to defeat pollution reductions and maintain their tax loopholes. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/02/02greenwire-oil-and-gas-interests-set-spending-record-for-l-1504.html">The New York Times reported</a> on some of their activities with their story, “Oil and Gas Interests Set Spending Record for Lobbying in 2009.”

API certainly got its money’s worth since no legislation was passed and the tax loopholes are still in place. Their spokesman Bill Bush said: “We had a lot of work to do trying to educate people on these issues…We hope we were successful."

<a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/02/big-oil-profits-used-to-kill-spill-bill/">Lobby reports</a> show that oil companies lobbied on a number of clean energy and global-warming-related issues. These included:

<ul>

<li>The <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2080:hr-5626-the-blowout-prevention-act-of-2010&catid=171:featured-legislation&Itemid=93">Blowout Prevention Act, H.R. 5626</a>, to prevent future oil disasters</li>

<li>BP federal royalty payments for oil captured from the Deepwater Horizon blow out, Spilled Oil Royalty Collection Act, <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5513ih.txt.pdf">H.R. 5513</a></li>

<li>Clean Air Act pollution reduction requirements</li>

<li>Efforts to cut global warming pollution: American Clean Energy and Security Act, <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1633&catid=155&Itemid=55">H.R. 2454</a> and the <a href="http://kerry.senate.gov/work/issues/issue/?id=7f6b4d4a-da4a-409e-a5e7-15567cc9e95c">American Power Act</a></li>

<li>Opposition to closing <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/oil_company_subsidies.html">tax loopholes that save oil companies $45 billion</a></li>

<li>Opposition to a <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/fracking.html">“Community Right to Know”</a> requirement that shale gas producers publicly report on the toxic chemicals they use to “frack” rock to produce natural gas, Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, <a href="http://degette.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=770:companion-bills-introduced-to-protect-drinking-water-from-natural-gas-fracking&catid=85:energy">H.R. 2766</a></li>

<li>Restrictions on the use of oil produced from highly polluting “tar sands</li>

<li>Increases in energy efficiency and deployment of wind, sun, and other renewable energy sources</li>

<li>Other public health, job creation, oil reduction, and environmental protection policies</li>

</ul>

Twenty-first century campaigns are <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/corporations_candidates_new_campaign_finance_rules.php">outrageously expensive</a>. Senators and representatives must raise millions of dollars in campaign cash for their contested reelection campaigns. Legislators’ need for money combined with special interests’ access to cash makes campaign contributions a potent weapon in the hunt for votes. Trade associations, businesses, and their employees donate thousands of dollars to legislators willing to do their bidding.

<a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/dirty_money.html">http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/dirty_money.html</a>

===

Natural Gas 2010:<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/node/9586"> http://www.prwatch.org/node/9586</a>

-----------

Ctr for responsive Pol said 5 energy co (incl enron)  gave 4 mill to GOP Palast p 141 petro chemical 48 mil

---

hoggan 60/40 GOP shifted 80/20 bush 2 1.5 m 2000

=

grist lobbying <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-27-oil-companies-and-special-interests-spend-millions-to-oppose-cli/PALL/print">http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-27-oil-companies-and-special-interests-spend-millions-to-oppose-cli/PALL/print</a>

...

Lobbying activities <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/pdf/oillobbying.xls">ramped up in 2009 </a>as the House of Representatives began debate on the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Senate deliberations began last fall and continued throughout 2010. The entire electric utility industry spent more than $264 million on lobbying alone in 2009 and the first half of 2010. Oil and gas interests spent a record $175 million lobbying in 2009 -- a 30 percent increase from 2008 -- and have spent $75 million already in 2010.

The oil, gas, and coal industries have spent <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/clean-energy-drowned-out-washington-billion-dollar-juggernaut">over $2 billion</a> lobbying Congress since 1999. These three industries combined spent a whopping $543 million on lobbying in 2009 and the first two quarters of 2010. Meanwhile, alternative energy companies spent less than $32 million on lobbying efforts in 2009 and have only spent $14.8 million this year.<a href="http://zedc4test.techprogress.org/issues/2010/09/dirty_money.html/#_ednref1">

</a>

The 20 biggest-spending oil, mining, and electric utility companies <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/pdf/oillobbying.xls">shelled out $242 million</a> on <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/">lobbying</a> from January 2009 to June 2010. Trade associations that generally oppose clean energy policies spent another $290 million during this time. This is over $1,800 in lobby expenditures a day for every single senator and representative.

Six of the seven companies with the largest <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/">lobbying expenditures</a> are Big Oil companies -- ExxonMobil (1), ConocoPhillips (2), Chevron (3), BP (5), Koch Industries (6), and Shell (7). Their 18-month lobbying expenditures total $143 million. Their agenda varies among companies, but generally they oppose most proposals to reduce global warming pollution from oil refineries and transportation fuels. And they seek to limit companies' liability for oil spills like the BP oil disaster.

...

----

Western Fuels

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association</a>

The Western Fuels Association states on its website that it is "a not-for profit cooperative that supplies coal and transportation services to consumer-owned electric utilities throughout the Great Plains, Rocky Mountain and Southwest regions" <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#cite_note-0" title="">[1]</a>, including the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sunflower_Electric_Power_Corporation" title="Sunflower Electric Power Corporation">Sunflower Electric Power Corporation</a>. Two members of its board are Sunflower's chief executive officer, Earl Watkins, and the Sunflower's board chairman. Sunflower's partner in the Holcomb expansion, a Colorado co-op, also has members on the board. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#cite_note-1" title="">[2]</a>

The Association founded the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greening_Earth_Society" title="Greening Earth Society">Greening Earth Society</a> in 1997 , according to a archived version of the Society's website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#cite_note-2" title="">[3]</a>

According to a March 30, 2008 article in the Kansas City Star, Western Fuels and its director Fred Palmer targeted a message to farmers, small-town officials and rural legislators in the 1990s to promote the idea that considerable doubt existed about the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming. Palmer is now a senior vice president at Peabody Energy, , which partnered with Sunflower in 2007 to buy pro-coal newspaper ads featuring Chavez, Ahmadinejad and President Vladimir Putin of Russia, warning that Kansas would have to import natural gas from Venezuela, Iran and Russia if no new coal plants were built.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a>

Previously, the Association had, at the inspiration of Palmer, sued Friends of the Earth, the Earth Island Institute, Rain Forest Action Network, Turning Point Project, the International Center for Technology Assessment and Ozone Action, in Western Fuels Association v. Turning Point Project, No. 00-CV-074-D (D. Wyo. 2001), challenging the truthfulness of an advertisement in the New York Times on December 13, 1999, entitled "Global Warming-How Will It End?" that called attention to the problem of global warming. The lawsuit attempted to establish a new legal precedent involving political speech by invoking the federal Lanham Act, which applies to commercial speech among competitors. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#cite_note-4" title="">[5]</a> The suit was dismissed. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#cite_note-5" title="">[6]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="javascript:toggleToc()" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>]</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#Contact_Information">1 Contact Information</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#Articles_and_Resources">2 Articles and Resources</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#Related_SourceWatch_Articles">2.1 Related SourceWatch Articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#References">2.2 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#External_Articles">2.3 External Articles</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>Contact Information</h2>

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS

1100 W. 116th Avenue

Westminster, CO 80234

Phone: (303) 254-3070 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (303) 254-3070      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Fax: (303) 254-3079

Email: wfa@westernfuels.org

Website: <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" title="http://westernfuels.org" href="http://westernfuels.org">http://westernfuels.org</a>

Contact: Duane Richards, CEO

<h2>Articles and Resources</h2>

Karen Dillon and David Klepper, "<a class="external text" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-campaigns-elections/12163685-1.html" href="http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-campaigns-elections/12163685-1.html">Lots of cash behind coal plant clash</a>," The Kansas City (MO) Star March 30, 2008.

<h3>Related SourceWatch Articles</h3>

<ul>

<li><a title="Global Warming Cost website" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Cost_website">Global Warming Cost website</a></li>

<li><a title="Greening Earth Society" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greening_Earth_Society">Greening Earth Society</a></li>

<li><a title="Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine">Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine</a></li>

<li><a title="Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change">Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change</a></li>

<li><a title="Richard S. Lindzen" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen">Richard S. Lindzen</a></li>

<li><a title="Smith & Harroff" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Smith_%26_Harroff">Smith & Harroff</a></li>

<li><a title="David E. Wojick" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_E._Wojick">David E. Wojick</a></li>

<li><a title="American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Coalition_for_Clean_Coal_Electricity">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</a></li>

<li><a title="Headquarters of U.S. coal mining companies" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Headquarters_of_U.S._coal_mining_companies">Headquarters of U.S. coal mining companies</a></li>

</ul>

<h3>References</h3>

<li id="cite_note-0"><a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#cite_ref-0">↑</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.westernfuels.org/index.cfm" href="http://www.westernfuels.org/index.cfm">Western Fuels Association Homepage</a>, Western Fuels Association website, accessed February 26, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#cite_ref-1">↑</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-campaigns-elections/12163685-1.html" href="http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-campaigns-elections/12163685-1.html">"Lots of cash behind coal plant clash,"</a> Karen Dillon and David Klepper, The Kansas City (MO) Star March 30, 2008.</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#cite_ref-2">↑</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" title="http://web.archive.org/web/20050308200600/www.greeningearthsociety.org/join.html" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050308200600/www.greeningearthsociety.org/join.html">"Join GES"</a>, Greening Earth Society website, archived from March 2005.</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#cite_ref-3">↑</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-campaigns-elections/12163685-1.html" href="http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-campaigns-elections/12163685-1.html">"Lots of cash behind coal plant clash,"</a> Karen Dillon and David Klepper, The Kansas City (MO) Star March 30, 2008.</li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#cite_ref-4">↑</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.pawalaw.com/assets/docs/corporate_legal_times_article.pdf" href="http://www.pawalaw.com/assets/docs/corporate_legal_times_article.pdf">"Six Environmental Groups Slapped by Coal Association: The Global Warming Debate Heats Up,"</a> David Rubenstein, Corporate Legal Times, July, 2000.</li>

<li id="cite_note-5"><a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association#cite_ref-5">↑</a> {<a class="external free" rel="nofollow" title="http://web.archive.org/web/20070716185454/www.icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=17" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070716185454/www.icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=17">http://web.archive.org/web/20070716185454/www.icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=17</a> Environmental Organizations Defeat Coal Industry SLAPP Suit: Federal Judge Dismisses Coal Industry Suit Attempting to Prevent Debate over Global Warming," News release, April 5, 2001.</li>

</ol>

=

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute</a>

<h1 class="firstHeading" id="firstHeading">American Petroleum Institute</h1>

<h3 id="siteSub">From SourceWatch</h3>

<div id="jump-to-nav">Jump to: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#column-one">navigation</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#searchInput">search</a></div>

The American Petroleum Institute (API), based in Washington, D.C., is a "major research institute .. committed to using the best available scientific, economic and legal analysis to guide and support" its policy positions. The Institute's work is member-driven and it offers "companies large and small the opportunity to participate in shaping API programs and policy priorities." API represents more than 400 members involved in all aspects of the oil natural gas industry. The API has offices in 27 state capitals. <a class="external autonumber" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.api.org" href="http://www.api.org">[1]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a class="internal" id="togglelink" href="javascript:toggleToc()">hide</a>]</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Responses_to_Obama_administration_actions">1 Responses to Obama administration actions</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#.22Energy_Citizens.22_rallies">1.1 "Energy Citizens" rallies</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Other_climate_policy-related_actions">1.2 Other climate policy-related actions</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#2008_elections">1.3 2008 elections</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#History">2 History</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Questioning_global_warming">2.1 Questioning global warming</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Concerns_about_API-funded_research">2.2 Concerns about API-funded research</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Petroleum_is_.22cool.22">2.3 Petroleum is "cool"</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Public_relations">3 Public relations</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Super_Bowl_2008">3.1 Super Bowl 2008</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Blogger_outreach">3.2 Blogger outreach</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Public_talks">3.3 Public talks</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#West_Virginia">3.3.1 West Virginia</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Delaware">3.3.2 Delaware</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#California">3.3.3 California</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Kentucky">3.3.4 Kentucky</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Idaho">3.4 Idaho</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Lobbying">4 Lobbying</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Personnel">5 Personnel</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Contact_information">6 Contact information</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Articles_and_resources">7 Articles and resources</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#Related_SourceWatch_articles">7.1 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#References">7.2 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#External_resources">7.3 External resources</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#External_articles">7.4 External articles</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>Responses to Obama administration actions</h2>

<h3>"Energy Citizens" rallies</h3>

In August 2009, an API-led coalition called <a title="Energy Citizens" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_Citizens">"Energy Citizens"</a> announced plans to hold rallies opposing the <a title="Waxman-Markey Climate Bill" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Waxman-Markey_Climate_Bill">Waxman-Markey Climate Bill</a> in about 20 states, targeting states "whose Democratic Senators aren't strong supporters of a stringent bill, such ... <a title="Sherrod Brown" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sherrod_Brown">Sherrod Brown</a> of Ohio and <a title="Mark Begich" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Begich">Mark Begich</a> of Alaska." <a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#cite_note-WSJrallies-0">[1]</a> In addition to API, "Energy Citizens" has backing from the <a title="National Association of Manufacturers" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Association_of_Manufacturers">National Association of Manufacturers</a>, <a class="mw-redirect" title="American Farm Bureau" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Farm_Bureau">American Farm Bureau</a>, <a class="new" title="American Highway Users Alliance (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Highway_Users_Alliance&action=edit&redlink=1">American Highway Users Alliance</a>, <a class="new" title="National Black Chamber of Commerce (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Black_Chamber_of_Commerce&action=edit&redlink=1">National Black Chamber of Commerce</a>, <a class="new" title="Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Small_Business_and_Entrepreneurship_Council&action=edit&redlink=1">Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council</a>, <a title="FreedomWorks" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks">FreedomWorks</a>, <a title="American Conservative Union" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Conservative_Union">American Conservative Union</a>, <a title="Americans for Tax Reform" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Tax_Reform">Americans for Tax Reform</a> and <a title="Council for Citizens Against Government Waste" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_Citizens_Against_Government_Waste">Council for Citizens Against Government Waste</a>. <a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#cite_note-1">[2]</a>

"The group has loudly protested the EPA’s decision to have greenhouse gas emissions regulated under the Clean Air Act. API members include <a title="Chevron" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chevron">Chevron</a>, <a title="ConocoPhillips" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ConocoPhillips">ConocoPhillips</a>,<a title="Exxon Mobil" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil">Exxon Mobil</a>, <a class="mw-redirect" title="GE" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=GE">GE</a>, <a class="mw-redirect" title="Halliburton" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Halliburton">Halliburton</a> and <a title="Shell" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shell">Shell</a>." <a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#cite_note-2">[3]</a>

Template fliers for the "Energy Citizens" rallies warned, "Climate change legislation being considered in Washington will cause huge economic pain and produce little environmental gain." The fliers also claimed that the <a title="Waxman-Markey Climate Bill" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Waxman-Markey_Climate_Bill">Waxman-Markey Climate Bill</a>, which passed the House of Representatives in June, would "cost 2 million American jobs, raise gasoline and diesel prices up to $4," hurt U.S. businesses and energy security. In contrast, the <a class="mw-redirect" title="Environmental Protection Agency" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Protection_Agency">Environmental Protection Agency</a> estimates that the bill would cost U.S. households "about a postage stamp a day," while the <a title="Energy Information Administration" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_Information_Administration">Energy Information Administration</a> projects that annual "energy bill costs could rise between $26 per household to to $362 by 2020." <a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#cite_note-WSJrallies-0">[1]</a>

Part of API's blog is devoted to "<a class="external text" rel="nofollow" title="http://blog.energytomorrow.org/energy-citizens/" href="http://blog.energytomorrow.org/energy-citizens/">Energy Citizens</a>." API also has an "Energy Citizens" <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.youtube.com/user/EnergyCitizens" href="http://www.youtube.com/user/EnergyCitizens">YouTube channel</a>.

<h3>Other climate policy-related actions</h3>

In April 2009, API sent a letter to members of Congress, in Gerard's name, that slammed the <a class="mw-redirect" title="Obama administration" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Obama_administration">Obama administration</a>. It stated: "The US oil and natural gas industry has the expertise and technology to produce the energy we need to fuel economic growth, create jobs, generate significant revenues for local, state and federal governments, and bolster our national security. However, our companies cannot do so if held back by harmful, counter-productive taxes and are restricted from access to domestic oil and natural gas resources that the country urgently needs. ... If imposed, these taxes and fees could have a debilitating effect on our economy, when our nation can least afford it. They would reduce investment in new energy supplies, meaning less energy produced for American consumers. We cannot tax our way out of our energy problems.” <a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#cite_note-3">[4]</a>

The same month, API protested the <a class="mw-redirect" title="Environmental Protection Agency" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Protection_Agency">Environmental Protection Agency</a>'s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endangered public health and could be regulated under the <a title="Clean Air Act" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Air_Act">Clean Air Act</a>. "The Clean Air Act was created to address local and regional air pollution, not the emission of carbon dioxide and other global greenhouse gases," said API's Jack Gerard. <a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#cite_note-4">[5]</a>

<h3>2008 elections</h3>

In response to the November 2008 election of Democrats <a title="Barack Obama" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama">Barack Obama</a> as President and <a class="mw-redirect" title="Joe Biden" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joe_Biden">Joe Biden</a> as Vice-president, API released a statement in the name of their CEO, <a class="mw-redirect" title="Jack Gerard" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jack_Gerard">Jack Gerard</a>, saying: "The American people have spoken loud and clear that they want politicians to put aside partisan bickering. ...The oil and natural gas industry stands ready to help put America's vast energy resources to good use, strengthening our nation's economy and energy security, and providing good jobs for Americans across the country." <a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#cite_note-5">[6]</a>

Earlier, Gerard had criticized Obama's platform, saying "Obama's plan to impose a windfall-profits tax on oil companies would harm one of the few industries that are thriving" in the economic crisis. <a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#cite_note-6">[7]</a>

<h2>History</h2>

"For 76 years, API has been the petroleum industry's U.S. national trade association. API released its first standard in 1923, intended to promote the interchangeability of oil field equipment throughout the industry." <a class="external autonumber" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.cssinfo.com/info/api.html#hist" href="http://www.cssinfo.com/info/api.html#hist">[2]</a>

"Today, over 900 API standards serve as the basis for API quality programs covering production material and lubricants, and certification programs for storage tanks, pressure vessels, and piping inspectors. They also publish recommended practices, research reports, and specifications on pipelines, valves, offshore structures, oil-spill response procedures, environmental protection, exploration, facility management and much more." <a class="external autonumber" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.cssinfo.com/info/api.html#hist" href="http://www.cssinfo.com/info/api.html#hist">[3]</a>

<h3>Questioning global warming</h3>

An API "Communications Action Plan" from 1998 stated: "Victory will be achieved when ... citizens 'understand' uncertainties in climate science ... [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom.'" <a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#cite_note-7">[8]</a>

<h3>Concerns about API-funded research</h3>

In April 2005, it was reported that API was overseeing a $27 million study on the health effects of benzene, funded by the major oil companies <a title="BP" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BP">BP</a>, Chevron Texaco, <a title="Conoco" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Conoco">Conoco</a>Phillips, <a title="Exxon Mobil" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil">Exxon Mobil</a> and Shell Chemical. The study was launched in 2001, in response to a <a title="National Cancer Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Cancer_Institute">National Cancer Institute</a> study that found "workers exposed to average levels of benzene had a risk of developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma more than four times greater than the general population." A follow-up NCI study, published in 2005, found that "benzene had toxic effects on blood cells at 1 part per million - the level workers in the United States are allowed to be exposed to over an eight-hour workday." Benzene is a component of gasoline, so oil companies were concerned that tighter benzene regulations would affect their operations. <a class="external autonumber" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3159505" href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3159505">[4]</a>

Although the API research wouldn't be complete until 2007, information from "depositions, proposals to oil companies and other documents collected by a Houston law firm in unrelated lawsuits" suggests that "the results of the study already have been predicted." The Houston Chronicle reported, "The conclusions are expected to contradict earlier research linking low- and mid-levels of benzene to cancers and other blood diseases - findings that could spawn tighter regulations." <a class="external autonumber" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3159505" href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3159505">[5]</a>

One research proposal from a Mobil Oil toxicologist said the study would "respond to allegations from a nationwide study of benzene exposed workers." The research proposal submitted to Marathon Oil stated that "the benzene research was expected to provide scientific support for the lack of a leukemia risk to the general population, evidence that current occupational exposure limits do not create a significant risk to workers and proof that non-Hodgkin's lymphoma could not be caused by benzene exposure." <a class="external autonumber" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3159505" href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3159505">[6]</a>

A Powerpoint presentation on the proposed research shown to potential oil company funders "included a section describing 'the significant issues of concern to global petroleum industry that the research would affect.' Those issues included possible changes to the way gasoline is made, additional emissions controls and litigation." <a class="external autonumber" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D89OLR1G0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down" href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D89OLR1G0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down">[7]</a>

In response to the April 2005 media reports on the benzene study, API manager of health sciences <a class="new" title="Lorraine Twerdok (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lorraine_Twerdok&action=edit&redlink=1">Lorraine Twerdok</a> stated that the study "is being conducted to gain a better understanding of the relationship between benzene exposure and potential cancer risk to protect industry workers and customers." <a class="external autonumber" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D89OLR1G0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down" href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D89OLR1G0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down">[8]</a>

<h3>Petroleum is "cool"</h3>

The API is the producer of a 16-minute video titled 'Fuel-less: you can't be cool without fuel', which was distributed through the <a title="National Science Teachers Association" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Science_Teachers_Association">National Science Teachers Association</a>. The film starts with the line "you're not going to believe this, but everything everything I have that's really cool comes from oil!" <a class="external autonumber" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.classroom-energy.org/oil_natural_gas/fuel_less/index.html" href="http://www.classroom-energy.org/oil_natural_gas/fuel_less/index.html">[9]</a>.

The API funds a website called 'classroom energy' <a class="external autonumber" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.classroom-energy.org/about_us.html" href="http://www.classroom-energy.org/about_us.html">[10]</a>, which aims to provide teachers and students with materials on 'the vital role of oil and natural gas in modern life.'

An API memo leaked to the media in 1998 shed some light on the motivation for targeting schools: "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future." <a class="external autonumber" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400789_pf.html" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400789_pf.html">[11]</a>

<h2>Public relations</h2>

<h3>Super Bowl 2008</h3>

At the January 2008 Super Bowl U.S. football championship game, API sponsored "Kickoff to Rebuild," highlighting its work with <a class="new" title="Rebuilding Together (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rebuilding_Together&action=edit&redlink=1">Rebuilding Together</a>, a nonprofit organization that promotes homeownership. API and Rebuilding Together are launching an "Energy Efficient Homes Initiative," which aims "to incorporate energy-efficiency measures in the more than 9,000 homes revitalized each year by Rebuilding Together." <a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute#cite_note-8">[9]</a>

<h3>Blogger outreach</h3>

</div>

lobby $

<table><tbody><tr><td class="Data_Item Data_Item_Text">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (Americans for Balanced Energy Choices)</td><td class="Data_Item Data_Item_Text">Quinn Gillespie & Associates</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td class="Data_Item Data_Item_Text">Barrick Gold of North America</td><td class="Data_Item Data_Item_Text">Barrick Gold of North America</td><td class="Data_Item Data_Item_Number">$340,000</td></tr></tbody></table>

<a href="http://projects.publicintegrity.org/climatelobby/Results.aspx?ClientName=&LobbyingFirm=&Expense=-1&LobbyistName=&Quarter=&BizCategory=Mining%20and%20Coal&Results_BizCategory=1&Results_ClientName=1&Results_Expense=1&Results_LobbyingFirm=1&Results_Quarter=1">http://projects.publicintegrity.org/climatelobby/Results.aspx?ClientName=&LobbyingFirm=&Expense=-1&LobbyistName=&Quarter=&BizCategory=Mining%20and%20Coal&Results_BizCategory=1&Results_ClientName=1&Results_Expense=1&Results_LobbyingFirm=1&Results_Quarter=1</a>

----

<div>Energy and climate change became major issues for both groups following the Democratic sweep of the congressional mid-year elections in 2006. Environmental groups scored major victories in the 2008 election cycle, betting heavily on a Democratic majority and the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama. </div>

<div>Individuals and political action committees contributed nearly $5.6 million to political candidates in 2007 and 2008. Ninety-four percent of the total went to Democrats. </div>

<div>These same groups favored Obama, who campaigned on a promise to aggressively tackle global warming, if elected. Pro-environment groups poured more than $1.2 million into his campaign, donating to his campaign over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's by a seven-to-one margin.</div>

<div>Oil and gas groups again outspent pro-environmental groups considerably, and with their own partisan slant. With more than $35.6 million, individuals and political action committees contributed far more, at a more than six-to-one rate. Seventy-seven percent of contributions from this industry went to Republicans during the 2008 cycle.</div>

<div>Still, it was pro-environmental groups that backed the winning candidates. And it was pro-environmental groups who carried the political momentum into 2009 and the first legislative battleground in the House of Representatives.</div>

ross gelbsapn site

---

<ul>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana" title="Louisiana">Louisiana</a> - 1417</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska" title="Alaska">Alaska</a> - 663</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas" title="Texas">Texas</a> - 1251</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California" title="California">California</a> - 666<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil-producing_states#cite_note-0">[1]</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma" title="Oklahoma">Oklahoma</a> - 166</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico" title="New Mexico">New Mexico</a> - 159</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming" title="Wyoming">Wyoming</a> - 142</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas" title="Kansas">Kansas</a> - 102</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota" title="North Dakota">North Dakota</a> - 121</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana" title="Montana">Montana</a> - 87</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado" title="Colorado">Colorado</a> - 48</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi" title="Mississippi">Mississippi</a> - 51</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois" title="Illinois">Illinois</a> - 24</li>

</ul>

==

rfk2

Ch 6  blueprint for plunder

energy co 48.3m to b2 and gop 2000, 58m since inaug 96  31 of 48 trans team energy ties; cab and staff 4 cab sec, 6 powerful WH and 20 high level apptees

rove owned 250K enron stock early 2001 while energy pol made; also BP, amoco, royal dutch shell  97 but involved in all decisons (scoter sold a bunch early

2001 dept comm ceo of cabot chem; undersec chief econ for exxon

secret taks force; Nat Energy Pol Dev gp right after inaug 97  but Fed Advisory Comm Act says any mtgs of pvt and public be disclosed, so official members

all gov as end-run 98  DC #2 spenser abrams (2000 failed relect sen after one term MI 700K from car industry) killed fuel effic; Joe Allbaugh dir F Energy

Reg Comiss (tx "iron triangle) wife lobby for reliant, entergy and txu); also Don evans tx, norton (1/3 sen camp energy co's), amd Paul O'Neill SIC vowed to

sell alcoa stock but stalled till after rep out, stock went up 30%  99 thot he cd have good impact, but relaized not goal 101

may 17 01 rep released --> energy bill ; exxon record profits, 2x prev yr 99

for 1st x, GAO sued for info, redently appt judge denied, no appeal , but Sierra C and Jud watch won. scotus delayed till after election; scalia had gone to

oil co duck hunt junket refused to recuse, tho msny demands 100 docs heavy redeacted, and nothing from CD mtgs 100

task force got input from API, Am Gas assoc, nat mining assoc and edison 101 400 co's combined in Alliance for Energy and ec growth to lobby.

B2 campaigh workers became lobbyists; mtgs w/ task force; am gas at least 8 480 K cantrib 1999-02 etc, api, exelon, westinghouse, enron 10x, 6 w DC (who

refused to cap CA energy prices) 103  RELIANT engineered CA scam 103  Westar exec email said $ to delay PAC was proce for "seat at table" of the task force

103. DC says just b/c somoen gave $ to camp does not mean shd not have "express views " to gov 103

suskind bk says DC orchestrated idea of energy crisis, permitted no discuss and said pres wd not read anyone's reports 104 day before rep released, foto op

w/ green energy

chevron big input, api lang on exec order verbatim 104-5

19 mtgs/contacts w/ nuke ind over 1/2 mil contrib

So Co 1.6 m 99-02 met 7x, hired haley barbour and current rnc Marc Racicot SIC to lobby esp on co2, NSR rule key, req gpa plants to intall control when

upgrade or expand 106  prosecuted by BC (8 of 51); dpet Just forced to drop suits EPA cheif enforcement officer quit 106 "if yo have a good lobbyist, you can

just buy your way out of trouble" 106  joined by edison's Tom Kuhn, b pioneer college roomate edison 600k to gop 99-02 and its mmbers almost 20 mil since 98

106

rep rec'd exempt old power plants from CAA; barbour raisedf 250K at may 21 gala, 150k from So co.107

Haliburton gave 1 mil gop 97-02, and all soft money 1/2 mil to gop ; incentive to polute added to rep.bill, tho O'N says does not cost more to do right.

conservation a private virtue, noy basis of pub;lic poliocy DC TO speech mo before rep released 107  but 1 mpg increase = ANWR  2.6 = iraq and kuwait import,

8 all of ME 108  JC cafge up 7.5, shorage --> glut 108, 86 rolled by RR; lovens says if not, we need no persian gulf oil after 86; no need for wars; since

1990 80 mil car $ , cancelled tax decd for gren cars, less effic st'ds 100K tax break hummers etc. result worst effic in 20 yrs 109  tax cuts to offset

energy prices [basically another subsidy !?]  bill ~ Daschle but end-run, by june 02 3/4 of 105 recs in place

oct 01 weakend regs on mining and air pollut

power plants kill a Trillion fish/yr 111

took pwer from states to limit offshore drill, b2 resfued to suppoert Superfund (hid as reform) but 1:4 Us ppl live near one 112  10c bbl cheap b/c excluded

from liability under cost recovery 112 normally epa can clean site then charge 3x to poluter, so big leverage ; w/o tax, no cleanup; oct 03 fund went

bankrupt, so cost shifted to public.

ch 7 king coal

mtntop 400k acres wasteland biorich temp forests; cutrrent rate 1 mil more in a decade(size of delaware0 115 2,500 tons explisive in WV per day! 115

strip mine started in west in 40's to get shallow coal, but used in Appal to get dep, reduce workers, bust unions (120K wVa to 15 ) 116

coal mine and pwer plants 20mil$ 2000 and another 21 since. unprec acces to task force; peabody execs on trans team ; bill has 2b for r&d, 5 days later IPO

got 60M more than predicted. wanted to build biggest pwr plant upwind of mamoth cave unesco site and biosphere res; 450K to gop in 3 mos, w Griles ok'd; pol

appt w/ no sci bkgd overtuned air study.

top lobby Quin Shea declared kyoto dead 119 undo all epa ability to reg co2 in months

1972 buff ck coal slurry dam collapse lilled 120 ppl. 2000 Massey 300 m gallon, biggest disaster in East US; 60 posions, 100 mi of river ; of 650, 1/2

dangerous ; 122 study thwarted by admin: chao her9tage, hubby got 100K from masey. chao appt coal exec to head MSHA (#2 amax mine, dep ast amax and peabody.

sludge study boss fired on inaug day ; 8 crim cts -->2 weakest, one tossed by admin jusge so 5600$ fine for billions in damage 123. 8 member team peress ti

sign off, one w/ wife w cancer, Spadaro invstigator lured to DC for mtg, his office searched (frames pix of family) changed locks"Gestope'd me" 123  OSC

invest whtleblower; demotred and reassigned

Jeff Holmstead EPA office of air and radiation, then pal got gig at Baker and Hostetler, So Co lobby 124 after gpa, hold#2 took job at Bracewell and

Paterson, houston co lobby for So co on NSR .  Sen Edwards called for holm resig supress sci and lying 125. Oct 03 GAO rep said he's lied that elim NSR wd

not affect ongpoing invest and proec of corps that broke rules incl So co. but he had talked to epa about it (3 quit)

Mike Leavitt of Ut repl CTW, 1st act waken merc rgs fom coal (40% or airborne merc) most cd be elim for 1% of plant rev.  lev and Holm scrapped BC reforms;

much reform" came from Latham and Watkins law firm (holm fmr co)  128

1/04 conf folowed gop fundraiser at Az Biltomore; solicited changes to ESA, Nat Env Pol Act, CAA, access to publ land, tort reform organized by coal lobby/DC

task force spkesman Jim Sims 129 connaught and griles there

GRILES 1970-81 pernitted Va; Buff Ck --> SMCRA, ~, lost 9-0 scotus, but watt appt him to Office of Surface Mining he's repoertdly vowed to "turn out the

lights"  130 cut staff 1/3, morale down " we tore the agency to hell" Wa Post 130  Dept int RR in 85, got rec'd for oil and gas leases ofshore  82K acres for

2.50 ea (17k acres sold for 42.5K then flipped for 37 m 131.  trtied to open ANWR CA and Fla coast, hid risks. 89-95 sr vp United Caol ,supervised one of

biggest mtntop, 95 formed lobby shop for 40 co's, merged with Nat Env Strats (barbour) : NMAssoc, Dominon, EEI, shell, texcaco arch coal etc etc 131  2001

sold client list to NES partner Himmelstein for 1.1 mil in 4 payments so in essence on payroll (dept of Int refused req for info ;sen made him agree not to

meet w/ former clients, but met chevron while appt pending (paid 46mil not to drill off fla coast ?! (helped jeb?) Griles press Fisher at epa to overrule

pipeline study, coal-bed mehane, met w/ nat'l mining assic to lax mtntop; himmel gave party w/ griles and bunch of b of int ppl who reg mining 134 , liberman

demanded ehtic invest: dept of int Insp Genl said he "did not take ethics seriously" "train wreak waiting to happen" ; he paid $180.  to himmel for dinner.

changed stories several times on shell and chevron; rep went to Norton, who closed case.

Griles at  least 30 WH mtgs, B2 2 w/ rove; met w/ indistry 37x on Clear Skies, New Src Rev and CAA rollback, tho Int has no jurisdiction 136 (but he had

lobbied on air for 13 co's)

Since 1975 "fill" meant no waste, but Army corps allowed mtntop even tho no authpority to 137  Griles pused EPA on this, tho violates CWA (intent, nit

explicit).  Chf Judge Haden tossed, but rw 4th curcuit upheld change. Griles rewrote EIS, 8 mil $ worth of studiesd relgated to appendix; 80K ppl weighed

in,but one day after comment period closed, stream buffer rule changed

ch 8

dascle held energy bill 18 mos till gop got both huses in 1/2003  Delay and energy comm chair Billy Tauzin passed, but know it cd not pass, so bait

andswitched: passed dem bill then rewrote it w/o dems 145, just energy lobby ;released the bill Sat night, 3 dfays to review 1200 pages 147 damge env and add

to deby (100B tax breaks McC: no lobbyist left behind"  for Hootrers and Poluters. Halib tax brak to frack ; worst bill for envir in 25 yrs (back to newt Reg

reform" More for oil, more ghg. ethaol subsid peeled off demos, incl daschle and harkin; DC and lobbists worked hard; even WSJ deplored pork for votes 149

House passed Domenici onmibus? bill [same as energy bill?], but sen filibuster. WSJ "cornucopia of special interst payoffs" 151 some gop sununu held out, big

deby and MTBE outrage (delay, tauzin and barton)"Major Threat to Beter Earnings' etc  shell jokes; used b/c lobby tho more $ than ethanol 155 cost to clean

cd be 29-46 b, co try to dodge .

</div>