bill kovacs bak CEA
wm l k
no color lnx below
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/williamkovacs
demo 180? sellout?
bak 4 22
2. Third-Party Mobilization
The general public is less likely to be convinced by a narrative that appears only to serve a special
interest, especially one with significant reputational liabilities, such as the oil and gas industry. PR
firms consequently work to make the industry’s positions seem widely supported by a range of
ostensibly unrelated groups, manufacturing the appearance of representing the broader public
interest.32 This tactic can take the form of third-party spokespersons, “generating favorable media
coverage, attributing advertisements to [a] third-party group instead of to the organization, creating
supportive social media, and mobilizing “astroturf” groups of public supporters.”33 Oil and gas
companies have also created and funded nonprofit entities, which they used to organize opposition
to climate policies.
34 Through these front groups, the industry has funneled tens of millions of
dollars to public relations firms to manage media campaigns.35
A prominent example of such an approach is the successful defeat of a 2016 effort to put on the
Colorado ballot two initiatives that would have altered Colorado’s constitution to (1) give local
municipalities the ability to ban fracking, and (2) prevent oil and gas development within a 2,500-
foot buffer zone from occupied buildings and parks, waterways, playgrounds, and other “areas of
special concern.”36 Seeing an existential threat to its “license to operate,” Noble Energy, a major
natural gas company operating in Colorado (later bought by Chevron), hired PR firm Story
Partners to help it prevent these safeguards from becoming law.
The Committee has obtained documents that reveal, in the PR firm’s own words, howStory
Partners successfully designed and executed its multipronged plan to defeat the initiatives at the
signature-gathering stage (Appendix 5). Story Partners achieved this through tactics including
astroturfing and careful analysis of which kind of message was most likely to persuade people that
the ballot measure would economically harm not only Noble Energy and “the industry at large,”
but the general public as well.37 This campaign and its techniques are discussed in greater detail in
the final section of this memorandum.
Third-party mobilization can also directly reach policymakers and their staff. Following the
Russian invasion of Ukraine, House Natural Resources Committee staff received a series of seven
...p 11
Staff from “HBW Resources” sent the emails and identified themselves as representatives of CEA,
describing it as “a nationwide grassroots organization that supports energy policies ensuring
abundant, affordable, reliable, and sustainable domestic energy supplies.” CEA claims to have
more than 550,000 individual members and to represent “a broad list of organizations that include
farmers, academia, conservation groups, truck drivers, laborers, trades-people, energy producers,
manufacturers, business owners to so much more.”51
Watchdog organization Energy and Policy Institute calls CEA an industry front group, and its
positions align closely with fossil fuel interests. CEA has been accused of engaging in astroturfing
on behalf of the major extractive energy industries.52 The organization received a score of “E-”
from LobbyMap (on an “A+” to “F” scale) on their climate policy’s alignment with the goals of
the Paris Agreement, reflecting CEA’s work to obstruct climate policy and energy transition at the
state and national level.53
HBW Resources, a self-described “government affairs, advocacy, public relations, and
communications firm,”54 appears to run CEA. The organization is run out of HBW’s Houstonbased office.
55 IRS forms indicate that CEA has no paid staff and its chief officers include HBW
employees, such as CEA President and Director—David Holt—and Vice President—Michael
Whatley.
56 Since 2010, HBW Resources has been CEA’s highest paid contract by far.Over this
time, 53% of all of CEA’s expenses were paid to HBW, totaling nearly $17 million.57 Large sums
were also paid to two PR firms currently under investigation by this Committee, FTI Consulting
and Story Partners.58
P 14
...reaffirmed Noble Energy as a strong partner in the community.”74 Meanwhile, print and digital
advertisements “creatively told the story of the unintended consequences of the proposed ballot
measures,” and “informed voters of the products and services dependent on oil and natural gas,
both from a funding point of view and from a resources perspective.”75 These narratives position
Noble as a socially responsible member of the community, while eliding the full environmental
and public health burden the fossil fuel industry creates in Colorado.
These advertisements against proposed fracking restrictions ran “under the brand of the South
Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce (SMDC),” and “concurrently under the banner of the
Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA),” creating the illusion of third-party mobilization.
76 Notably,
“guerilla marketing teams attended dozens of Colorado events and engaged hundreds of thousands
of citizens.”77 Story Partners’ budget for this campaign is not public information, but CEA’s tax
filings show that the organization paid the PR firm $535,442 in 2016 for “communications,”
presumably for this effort.
78
Story Partners called the campaign a “huge success,” and “an enormous, measurable achievement
for Noble Energy.”79 The PR firm noted that a survey, “after just two months of campaign activity,
indicated that support for the specific ballot measures dropped to its lowest point in our research,
and opposition to the measures had increased. For the first time, support for the measures was
under 51 percent, and it was clear the campaign messages were working and recalled.”80 The PR
campaign had successfully stopped climate legislation.
Two years later, there was an effort to revive the buffer zone ballot measure. Proposition 112(aka
initiative 97) was a 2018 Colorado ballot initiative designed to mandate that new oil and gas
development, including fracking, be sited a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupied
buildings such as homes, schools, hospitals, and other areas designated as vulnerable. The measure
was brought by grassroots environmental group Colorado Rising.81
Industry pushback was coordinated, sophisticated, and heavily funded. Oil and gas firms funneled
millions of dollars into coordinated PR campaigns to defeat Proposition 112.82 Oil and gas industry
[CRED protect colo]
P18
attempted to end their contract while demanding additional payments.96,97 When Colorado Rising
contracted with another signature-gathering firm, the firm broke the contract several days later. In
a recorded conversation shared with the Committee, a subcontractor admitted to taking a bribe of
“a lot” of money to stop working with Colorado Rising. He also stated the people who paid him
off had asked him to give them the signatures he had gathered for Proposition 112, but he did not
confirm or deny that the request came from Protect Colorado, the Pac/West front group. (Appendix
7(a))
98
Volunteers for Colorado Rising also experienced harassment in their volunteer and personal
capacities. Members of the opposition attempted to infiltrate their campaign trainings, showed up
repeatedly at their press conferences and outside their campaign office to monitor them, and
monitored the campaign’s delivery of signatures to the Secretary of State’s office. In her personal
life, the witness was followed around town by unidentified men – who also showed up to record
Colorado Rising press conferences – and received unsolicited texts from one of the people who
attempted to infiltrate their campaign (Appendix 7(b)).
99 Another lead volunteer received
harassing mail at her home address (Appendix 7(c)).[gun in waitband?]
100
CONCLUSION
For decades, the oil and gas industry denied or downplayed climate change and its role in causing
it. Now that fossil fuel companies and trade groups can no longer get away with outright denial,
they pay millions to PR firms to wage sophisticated and varied campaigns that go far beyond mere
marketing. These efforts include falsely depicting industry as joining the fight against climate
change, engineering astroturf “citizen” groups to advocate for industry interests and defeat
legislative proposals, and using unscrupulous tactics to sabotage genuine policy solutions and
attack community advocates. These modern techniques are arguably far more insidious than the
denialism of the past, thanks to the pivotal involvement of PR firms.[long appendix rich st'd CEA, threat ltr]
Bill Kovacs is actively fighting against environmental impact studies of proposed coal export terminals on the Pacific Coast. In June of 2012, Kovacs wrote a letter asking the Army Corps to ignore calls for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which he considers ““excessive environmental review.” He has compared community opposition to coal export terminals to major battles in the civil war.
Kovacks has demanded the EPA conduct a "Scopes Monkey Trial" on the science of climate change.
Bill Kovacs is also the head of the Consumer Energy Alliance, a corporate front-group for anti-environmentalism.
trey at cei anti union (related?)
==
What do these funders get from NBCC?
They get a voice opposing the EPA and climate progress at every turn. Alford and NBCC have opposed every viable climate policy advance from UN Kyoto Protocol to Senator McCain's attempts in the early 2000s before he forgot how to be a climate champion, to Henry Waxman's valiant 2009 effort to the 2015 Clean Power Plan.
Along the way, Chevron and Exxon for instance get Harry Alford and NBCC to oppose the new EPA ozone air pollution standards, an issue that the oil industry has been hammering lately. Alford testified before Congress on this recently and there was a session at the NBCC annual meeting entirely dedicated to the EPA Ozone standards.
How do the Proposed EPA Ozone Regulations Effect My Business?
Moderator: William Kovacs, Senior Vice President, Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Panelists: Arnold Baker, President, BakerReady Mix; Harry Alford, President & CEO, NBCC; Norris McDonald, founder/ president, African American Environmental Association; Steve Higley, AFPM
Notes: An oversight or omission, The American Fuel and Petroleum Marketers Association (AFPM) nor Steve Higley were listed speakers or sponsors of the meeting.
Bill Kovacs of the US Chamber of Commerce appears to be a frequent wingman to Harry Alford, often appearing to testify alongside or cohosting events.
==
House passes bills to rein in activist influence on regulations
By JOHN SICILIANO • 1/7/16
The House passed two Republican-backed bills to roll back excessive regulations and prevent environmentalists from influencing regulations through so-called "sue-and-settle" tactics.
Business groups welcomed passage of the first bill the "Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015," by a vote of 244 to 173, which takes aim at the use of class-action lawsuits to get federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency to agree to their terms in settlement agreements and defense decrees.
The House also passed, 245 to 174, the SCRUB Act, which would set up a special bipartisan commission to hunt down burdensome rules for repeal and put a damper on federal overreach.
The White House said earlier this week that President Obama would veto both bills.
Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.
"Today we are one step closer to reforming our broken regulatory system after passage of this common-sense legislation," said William Kovacs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's senior vice president for regulatory affairs and the environment, in response to passage of the sue-and-settle bill.
"The abusive 'sue and settle' practice has gone on long enough, with the public denied the right to weigh in on major policy decisions brought before courts under private agreements between agencies and advocacy groups," Kovacs added. "Regulations that arise from this secretive process cost businesses many millions of dollars and can stunt economic growth."
The House appears more emboldened than ever to chase down what the GOP sees as regulatory overreach by the president. The House is also expected to take up a resolution of disapproval next week nullifying the EPA's Waters of the United States rule, which has become a prime target by the leadership for repeal.
The water rules make ranchers and farmers subject to enforcement actions by designating ditches waterways, which lawmakers and federal judges have questioned in recent months.
Jim Tozzi, former head of the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President Ronald Reagan, says more is needed to rein in regulations by establishing a regulatory cap.
Also from the Washington Examiner
"Basically we are beginning to convince advocates for less regulation that if they continue to place procedural constraints on regulators that although such actions will decrease the rate of growth in the regulatory state it will continue to increase but at a slower rate," Tozzi said in an email. "The fix is a regulatory budget, which is the key to kingdom. A regulatory budget puts a cap on the total costs that regulators can impose on the public."
Tozzi was involved with groups who advised lawmakers on the SCRUB Act. He is the head of the regulatory watchdog group Center for Regulatory Effectivenes.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-passes-bills-to-rein-in-activist-influence-on-regulations/article/2579901
==
company U.S. Chamber of Commerce
position director of the Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs division
bio
William L. Kovacs is responsible for environmental “advocacy” at the US Chamber of Commerce. He is not convinced rising levels of greenhouse gasses are causing global climate change. Under Kovacks, hired in 1988, the Chamber's anti-environmental work has become a core part of the organization.
According to the Chamber’s website:
"William Kovacs provides the overall direction, strategy, and management for the Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs Division at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs Division initiates and leads multidimensional, national issue campaigns on comprehensive energy legislation, complex environmental rulemakings, telecommunications reform, emerging technologies, and the systematic application of sound science to the federal regulatory process among others."
"Before joining the Chamber, Kovacs was director of worldwide legal affairs for Sunshine Makers, Inc., manufacturer of the Simple Green line of nontoxic cleaning products. Previously, he held the position of partner in several Washington, D.C., law firms where his practice focused on environmental law.
In government service, Kovacs served as vice chairman and chairman of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Board, as chief counsel and staff director for the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce, and as legislative director and counsel for a member of Congress.
During his tenure as chief counsel, Kovacs was the primary counsel on two landmark laws that were enacted in a single session of Congress: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the primary federal law that regulates solid and hazardous waste; and the Rail Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act, which reorganized the bankrupt Penn Central Railroad into Conrail, the largest corporate reorganization in the United States at that time."
source: U.S Chamber of Commerce
1972, Pennsylvania; 1973, District of Columbia; 1983, Virginia Education University of Scranton, B.S.; The Ohio State University, J.D
Bill Kovacs has a law degree from the Ohio State University College of Law and a bachelor of science degree from the University of Scranton, magna cum laude.
Quotes
"Once again, EPA is overstepping its bounds to attack the coal industry, and it is ignoring the adverse employment impacts on the nation’s construction industries”
Platts
"The biggest threat to plastics and chemicals, and perhaps all industry, is the ability for anyone to disseminate incorrect information cheaply to the entire world...use of the Internet by extreme environmentalists and greater amounts of public disclosure law will create fear and allow the sabotage of industries."
Australian Broadcast Company
"Before the Civil War, (battlegrounds) like Antietam and Gettysburg were mostly unheard of...now the fight for a sensible energy policy is being fought on the same scale in places like the Port of Morrow and Longview."
Reuters
“While there is a scientific consensus that greenhouse gas concentrations have increased, the consequences of this and best means of addressing it are both still the subject of a vigorous debate."
Yale 360
“It would be the science of climate change on trial” (In reference to his demand that EPA conduct a trial of climate scence.)
Yale 360
"They don't have the science to support the endangerment finding,"
New York Times
New York Times
Evidence
Bill Kovacs created and controls a Chamber funded PR effort called "Project No Project," which attacks environmental regulations and opposition to the oil and gas industry. According to the projects website:
"Project No Project assesses the broad range of energy projects that are being stalled, stopped, or outright killed nationwide due to “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) activism, a broken permitting process and a system that allows limitless challenges by opponents of development."
Bill Kovacs is actively fighting against environmental impact studies of proposed coal export terminals on the Pacific Coast. In June of 2012, Kovacs wrote a letter asking the Army Corps to ignore calls for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which he considers ““excessive environmental review.” He has compared community opposition to coal export terminals to major battles in the civil war.
Kovacks has demanded the EPA conduct a "Scopes Monkey Trial" on the science of climate change.
Bill Kovacs is also the head of the Consumer Energy Alliance, a corporate front-group for anti-environmentalism.
Links and Resources
Reuters
Politico Arena Profile
Blomberg profile
bs:
William L. Kovacs
William L. Kovacs provides the overall direction, strategy, and management for the Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs Division at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Since coming to the Chamber in March 1998, Kovacs has transformed a small division concentrated on a handful of issues and committee meetings into one of the most significant in the organization. The Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs Division initiates and leads multidimensional, national issue campaigns on comprehensive energy legislation, complex environmental rulemakings, telecommunications reform, emerging technologies, and the systematic application of sound science to the federal regulatory process among others.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations.
Environment, Technology, and Regulatory Affairs Staff
William L. Kovacs
Senior Vice President
Daren Bakst
Policy Counsel, Government Operations, Oversight & Consumer Affairs
Shea Bettwy
Committee Coordinator
Charity Edgar
Manager, Committees & Communications
Jason Goldman
Senior Counsel, Telecommunications & E-Commerce and Managing Director
Matt Hite
Policy Counsel, Environment and Agriculture
Keith Holman
Legal and Policy Counsel
Jonathan Jackson
Senior Director
Mary Martin
Policy Counsel, Energy, Clean Air & Natural Resources
Carin Rising
Assistant to the Senior Vice President
Contact Us:
Industry Says Green Is Bad for the Environment
Submitted by Diane Farsetta on April 28, 2009 -
We must destroy the environment in order to save it, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's new campaign against government oversight and what it calls "green tape." "We cannot mandate excessive reductions in greenhouse gases, fuel our future and apply green technologies if we don't address the green tape, excessive permitting requirements, and activist opposition," complained Chamber vice-president for environment, technology and regulator affairs William Kovacs. The Chamber's new campaign, called "Project No Project," includes a website, advertisements and social media outreach. It highlights "green projects" the Chamber claims have been stalled because of excessive regulations and pesky activists. Among the highlighted projects is the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, which the Obama administration says it will abandon due to safety concerns. "All types of clean energy projects -- from renewables to nuclear to clean coal to natural gas -- find themselves mired in 'green tape,'" states one of the Chamber's campaign alerts.
[related to joe at WND?
http://thinkprogress.org/tag/william-kovacs/
U.S. Chamber Of Commerce: ‘We’ve Never Questioned The Science Behind Global Warming’
By Brad Johnson onSep 29, 2009
Tom Donohue, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO
Energy companies are abandoning the sinking ship of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in droves over its opposition to climate change action. The Chamber is aggressively opposing efforts by President Obama and the Congress to fight global warming pollution, saying federal regulation would “strangle the economy” and cap-and-trade legislation would be “economically disruptive of business and industry activities.” However, responding to the criticism of the companies who have left the Chamber, spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel claimed his organization respects the science of climate change:
We’ve never questioned the science behind global warming.
This is a blatant falsehood, by any definition. The Chamber has a long history of questioning the science of climate change. The Chamber’s present campaign against regulation of greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency questions the existence of global warming as well as the scientific evidence of its impacts on the public health and welfare. The Chamber promotes global warming denier books “to advance our thinking about issues of significance,” and has promoted the work of global warming denier Pat Michaels since at least 1992:
2009: Chamber SVP Kovacs Calls For ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ On The ‘Science Of Climate Change.’ “It would be evolution versus creationism. It would be the science of climate change on trial.” Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President William Kovacs explained that the Chamber was seeking a “Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” on global warming to prevent the EPA from declaring greenhouse gases a threat to the public welfare. [Los Angeles Times, 8/25/09]
2009: Chamber Claims No ‘Plausible Theory’ To Link ‘Climate Change With Extreme Weather Events And Disease In The United States,’ Disputes ‘Claims Of Ocean Acidification.’ In an official filing prepared by the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis for the comments on the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce cited blog posts by global warming deniers such as Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger to challenge a broad range of climate change science, including sea level rise and the “UN/IPCC forecasted temperature increases.” [U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 8/25/09]
2009: National Chamber Foundation Promotes Global Warming Denier Book As ‘#1′ Top Book Of The Year. Promoting “Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s National Chamber Foundation writes: “Climatologists Patrick J. Michaels and Robert Balling Jr. explain that climate science is hardly unbiased,” and that the “pop-culture icons of climate change turns out to be short on facts and long on exaggeration.” On Twitter, the National Chamber Foundation ranked the book “#1″ in its “Top Books of ’09.” [National Chamber Foundation, 8/20/09]
richard vigilate via __]
The Deniers2008: National Chamber Foundation Promotes Global Warming ‘Deniers’ Book Against ‘Global Warming Hysteria.’ The National Chamber Foundation selected “The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution and Fraud; And those who are too fearful to do so” by Lawrence Solomon to “help shape the debate on issues important to the business community.” [National Chamber Foundation, 2008]
2008: Chamber President Tom Donohue Says ‘Scientific Inquiry’ Into Climate Change ‘Should Continue’ Because Of ‘Cooling Trend.’ On March 4, 2008, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue revealed his true thoughts to the Chamber’s board, questioning the science of global warming: “As the scientific inquiry continues (and given the recent reports indicating a cooling trend over the last year, such inquiry should continue) the Chamber supports public and private sector action to control the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.” [U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 3/4/08]
2003: Chamber Says ‘We Need To Have Better Science’ To Justify Climate Action. Following the defeat of the McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade climate legislation in 2003, William Kovacs, the Chamber’s vice president for environment, technology, and regulatory affairs, told the Heartland Institute, “We need to have better science to support any efforts to restrict energy use before Americans can justify sacrificing their jobs, quality of life, and paying almost double for their utility bills.” [Heartland Institute, 11/21/03]
2003: Chamber Claims ‘Every Aspect Of The Environment’ Is ‘Getting Cleaner.’ Praising George W. Bush’s environmental record, William Kovacs dismissed the concept of global warming pollution. “The air, along with every other aspect of the environment, is getting cleaner. I think that has been a true statement for the last 30 years, and it will continue to be. I think Bush has been continuing along that path.” [New York Times, 2/23/2003]
2001: Chamber Claims Global Warming ‘About One Percent From Human Activity,’ Says ‘Things Just Change.’ Appearing on CNNFN, William Kovacs challenged the “link” between human activity and global warming and called for more research. “Let me address two issues. One is, the link. You know, let’s be realistic, 95 percent of all greenhouse gases, you know, really come from water vapor; and another 3 or 4 percent from natural causes, and we’re down to about one percent from human activity. So the Bush plan is really twofold. One is, we’re going to spend another 120-$130 million to see if we can get some of the tough issues, and make the links. Even EPA agrees. You know, yes, there is global warming, but you know, 20 years ago, we were worried about global cooling. Things just change, and before we sink the economy, we need to make sure we’ve got the right research done.” [CNNFN, 7/16/2001]
1992: Chamber Sponsors Global Warming Denier Pat Michaels To ‘Refute The Global Warming Warnings.’ “Bankrolled partly by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Global Climate Coalition, a group of manufacturers fearful of new environmental regulations, Patrick Michaels and Washington, D.C., attorney Eugene M. Trisko have been traveling cross-country to refute the global warming warnings from environmentalists.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 5/13/1992]
Update
U.S. Chamber of Commerce board member Don Blankenship, the president and CEO of coal giant Massey Energy who has argued “greeniacs are taking over the world,” told Forbes yesterday that global warming is a “hoax”:
I think it’s all a hoax and a Ponzi scheme. I can’t find any logic to the fact that the climate is actually changing any more because of man than it would without man.
inside the wire:
hse sci comm 11/14 huffpo B johnson
...
Examples of the revolving door abound: former chief counsel Margaret Caravelli had joined the committee from the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association; she is now on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staff. Dan Byers, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee staff director, went to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy Institute, its fossil-industry lobbying wing. Before Smith became committee chair, Environment Subcommittee staffer Clinton Woods came from the energy task force of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, where he helped the American Gas Association draft a report on “EPA’s hostility to fossil fuels.”
The committee's majority is now also home to a new generation of lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry. After the Energy and Environment subcommittee was split into two, it gained two new staff directors, Stephen Sayle for Energy and Allyne Todd Johnston for Environment. Given their backgrounds, the subcommittees could more appropriately be named Fracking and Coal.
Sayle is a prominent fossil-industry lobbyist who got his start with Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). In the 1990s, he was the chief counsel for Barton’s investigations into EPA fine particle air quality rules. While a top lobbyist at the Dutko and Dow Lohnes lobbying shops, Sayle’s clients included a cavalcade of oil, gas, and coal companies and front groups: Duke Energy, Cinergy, Chevron, Iroquois Gas, National Grid, Calpine, ITC, Tenaska, PSEG, Tesoro, the American Chemical Council, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Electric Power Supply Association. (Sayle also represented the Environmental Working Group, an environmental health research and advocacy group, on toxic-chemical regulation in 2010.) Sayle was one of The Hill’s top lobbyists of 2012 for his “background on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.”
Sayle’s return to the committee is somewhat surprising –- the energy subcommittee primarily has jurisdiction over the Department of Energy science labs, which focus on nuclear research, advanced biofuels, battery technology, and climate research -– not well aligned with Sayle’s focus on natural-gas and petrochemical lobbying.
However, the explosive growth of fracking in the nation in the past decade has raised serious new scientific questions about the risks and benefits of this formerly obscure method of extracting natural gas. How the federal government responds to scientific evidence of fracking’s threat to water supplies and our climate is a multi-billion-dollar question. That Republicans would add a fracking lobbyist to the House Science Committee is hardly surprising: Obama’s new Secretary of Energy is Ernest Moniz, a natural-gas-industry-funded scientist expected to steer the agency towards supporting oil and gas development.
Johnston came to the House Science Committee in 2013 from the staff of Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), where he was the chief climate policy advisor for the senator, a climate-science conspiracy theorist. Prior to that, Johnston was the Director of Air Quality for the coal industry’s primary trade group, the National Mining Association, from 2005 to 2007. During his tenure, he worked as a representative of the “Coarse Particle Coalition,” a group of gravel, cement and minerals groups that aimed to block scientifically backed soot standards during the George W. Bush administration.
Johnston then joined Sen. George Voinovich’s (R-Ohio) staff, drafting climate legislation in 2007 that supported a continued increase in greenhouse pollution and massive subsidies for the coal industry. In 2011 he moved to Inhofe’s staff, replacing Tom Hassenboehler when that operative moved over to America’s Natural Gas Alliance.
Johnston and Sayle declined comment for this story. According to committee Republican press aide Zachary Kurz, thecommittee has a policy of not making staffers available for public comment.
Environmentalists say industry groups are taking advantage of the key staff placements to help drive their plans.
“Industrial polluters are using the back rooms of Congress in this traditionally sleepy committee to assert an extreme corporate agenda,” clean-air advocate John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council argued in a telephone interview. “If you connect the dots, the agenda is to systematically bias the system, whether by weakening conflict of interest standards when corporations serve on scientific advisory bodies or thwarting regulations that address industrial pollution.”
The ties between the committee's Republicans and oil, gas and coal groups run deeper than staffing, of course. Press accounts in recent years have noted that fossil fuel interests have donated large amounts to Republicans on the House Science Committee.
==
Debating Shelby
Sentiments expressed at a March 12 National Academy of Sciences workshop suggest that scientists and policy-makers remain very concerned about data access issues related to the now infamous Shelby Amendment. The amendment, a two-line provision added by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) to an omnibus appropriations law for fiscal year 1999, subjects federally funded scientific research to requests for data made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).1 Its inclusion sparked a debate between indust
By Eugene Russo | April 2, 2001
Sentiments expressed at a March 12 National Academy of Sciences workshop suggest that scientists and policy-makers remain very concerned about data access issues related to the now infamous Shelby Amendment. The amendment, a two-line provision added by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) to an omnibus appropriations law for fiscal year 1999, subjects federally funded scientific research to requests for data made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).1 Its inclusion sparked a debate between industry stakeholders and scientists. The former endorsed the amendment as a means of challenging scientific studies that support costly regulations; the latter expressed concerns about increased paperwork, intellectual property searches by industry and academic competitors, unwarranted access to personal information on research subjects, and even deliberate use of the amendment by industry to reinterpret data and harass researchers.
After receiving thousands of public comments, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reinterpreted the amendment, reaffirming FOIA's privacy trade and secrecy protections, and limiting requested data to published or cited research used by the federal government in developing legally binding agency actions. Thus far, the legislation has not been extensively tested. The National Institutes of Health has granted only four FOIA requests and denied three. The Environmental Protection Agency has received only a handful of requests.
Many scientists and scientific institutions, including both the NAS and the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, saw the OMB's interpretation as a big improvement. Several panelists at the NAS workshop approved as well, but they expressed continued concern. Workshop attendee E. William Colgazier, CEO of the NAS and the National Research Council, was hoping the OMB agreement would be acceptable to all interested parties. But after hearing discussion at the workshop, he called his outlook "less sanguine."
NAS director Bruce Alberts said he understood the importance of openness in science, but he called FOIA an inappropriate tool for gaining that access. He worries that anybody can request data as a result of the Shelby amendment--that there's no "need to know" provision. He's particularly concerned that tobacco companies or organizations like the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) will soon use FOIA to harass researchers. David G. Hawkins, director of the Air and Energy Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said his principle objection was Shelby's applying to only government-funded, and not privately supported, research. Organizations like his, said Hawkins, can't use FOIA to question data presented by industry, though industry can question the underlying data of federally funded research.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been among the most outspoken supporters of the original Shelby amendment and critics of the OMB revision. "The bottom line is that the data that needs to be shared is the data that is part of public policy, the data that actually imposes costs," said William L. Kovacs, vice president of environment, technology, and regulatory affairs at the organization. He claims that the 4,000 new industry regulations established annually cost the U.S. economy $725 billion. Kovacs is primarily concerned about the regulatory impact of studies like a Harvard University-led pollution study that was undertaken to measure the morbidity and mortality effects of particulate matter in six U.S. cities. Dubbed the "six-city study," it was a big reason for Shelby introducing his amendment.
Controlling for age, weight, occupation, education, and other factors, researchers found that the Northeast cities nearest to coal-burning plants had higher mortality rates. Started in 1973, and continuing for more than two decades, the study was crucial to the EPA's tightening of ambient air quality standards. After business interests were denied access to the study's medical data (researchers cited concerns about the anonymity of the subjects involved), Harvard researchers enlisted an independent, nonprofit corporation called the Health Effects Institute (HEI) to do a data audit. HEI backed the data and the findings.
Kovacs said that the Chamber of Commerce remains dissatisfied and continues to insist on seeing the data. At the workshop, when asked by David Korn, senior vice president for biomedical and health sciences research at the Association of American Medical Colleges, what the U.S. Chamber would do with the data if they had it in hand, Kovacs suggested they'd have a team "reevaluate it." "And then what?" asked Korn. Kovacs gave no specifics. Regardless, he implied that a lawsuit challenging the OMB interpretation was a good possibility.
hmmn
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Trey Kovacs is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute,where he focuses on the economic impacts of labor policy. He has spent the last five years researching the adverse effects of public-sector unions on workplace choice and the economy, worker freedom, private-sector labor relations, and other labor policy reforms.
Kovacs has been published by The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, U.S. News & World Report, and The Hill, among other publications. His work has been cited by The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Fox News and more. He is also a regular contributor to CEI’s OpenMarket blog.
Kovacs received his Bachelor of Science in 2010 from Radford University. He currently resides in Virginia.
Trey Kovacs, Fairfax, is the editor of workplacechoice.org,the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s comprehensive labor news website. He is also a research associate for CEI’s Financial
Services group. Kovacs recently co-authored “Labor Unions and the Democratic Party: Growing Rifts in the Coalition,” a study published by Capital Research Center’s Labor Watch.
--
Policy Analyst
Competitive Enterprise Institute
December 2010 – Present (5 years 8 months)
Intern
Republican National Committee
2010 – 2010 (less than a year)
Matthew Hunter
President, Capitol Creative; Part owner, member of the Board of Directors and Marketing Director at Lemery Logistics
Wes King
Web site & digital strategist, marketing advisor and communications and PR professional
Martin Kaufman
Sr. VP at Atlantic Legal
Alden Wahlstrom
Student at University of Maryland College Park
Scott King
Educational Programs Intern at Institute for Humane Studies
Sharon Koss
Digital Marketing Coordinator
Gail Kramer
Finance & Administration Director at Pacific Education Institute
Sean Kelly
Administrative and Research Assistant at Hudson Institute
Michelle Minton
Senior Policy Analyst at Competitive Enterprise Institute
Caleb Johnson
Associate Director, Transnational Threats Project at CSIS
==
http://www.climatedevlab.brown.edu/uploads/2/8/4/0/28401609/chamber_of_obstruction_report.pdf
june 2021
This report should be cited as: Triedman, Cole. 2021. “Chamber of Obstruction: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s’ Shifting Discourses on Climate Change, 1989-2009.” Brown University Climate and Development Lab
Table of Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………... 2
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….. 3
Research Methods……………………………………………………………................ 5
Key Findings……………………………………………………………………………….. 5
The Chamber Used 16 Climate Discourses………………………………....... 5
Discourses shifted strongly by presidential administration……………….. 9
From climate affirmation, to skepticism, to denial…………………………... 10
Global warming and the economy………………………………………………. 13
The Chamber presented climate change as unsolvable……………………. 15
The Chamber attacked policies when climate action loomed……………... 16
Bill Kovacs pushed the Chamber to more extreme positions…………….... 17
Key Documents…………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………... 25
Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………….... 29
Executive Summary
The United States Chamber of Commerce has been a central actor in the national and global countermovement
against ambitious action on climate change. During the formative period for climate change policy from 1989 to
2009, the U.S. Chamber mobilized a shifting set of discourses on the issue aimed at obstructing policy proposals
and treaties under consideration. This report analyzes how these discourses shifted through 41 primary source
documents from the Chamber over those years.
Seven key findings illuminate patterns in the Chamber’s dynamic climate discourses over the course of the 1989-
2009 period. First, the Chamber utilized 16 unique “discourses of delay” to discount climate science and dismiss
a series of policy proposals. Second, the frequency by which the Chamber employed these discourses shifted
significantly between presidential administrations. Third, after affirming climate science in an internal May 1989
presentation, the U.S. Chamber shifted to frequent climate skepticism that culminated in a public denial of climate
science during the ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ moment of 2009. Fourth, after a decade of articulating a fundamental
conflict between climate action and economic prosperity, in the 2000’s the Chamber began suggesting that a
longterm, non-transformative strategy for climate progress– referred to as a ‘paradigm shift– could combine formerly
competing objectives.
Fifth, after delaying addressing whether or not climate change was a solvable challenge,
this paradigm shift coincided with the introduction of surrender discourses that discredited the possibility of
remedying climate change. Sixth, over the course of the 1989-2009 period, the Chamber tended to ‘diagnose’
climate change and policy challenges when significant climate policy opportunities were absent, and frame
discussions in prognostic, motivational, and policy-specific terms when they were present. Finally, the Chamber’s
messaging about climate change became markedly more extreme, dramatic, and aggressive during the 2000’s,
likely related to the hiring of William Kovacs as Vice President of its Environment, Technology, and Regulatory
Affairs group.
Overall, however, the U.S. Chamber combined these discourses to form a recurring argument: The climate change
problem is elusive and the science needs more time to develop, solutions being proposed would be harmful to the
American economy and put us at disadvantage to other countries, non-transformative solutions like technological
innovation and voluntary action are a viable strategy while scientific and policy issues get resolved.
This research shows how dynamic Chamber climate discourses were over the formative period for climate policy
in the United States. Arguably, these discourses and the pressure exerted by the Chamber and its members were
successful in delaying climate action for these crucial decades. While the recent shift in Chamber public discourse
towards the “inaction is not an option” message is encouraging for climate action advocates, the findings of this
analysis suggest a heightened level of scrutiny.
US Chamber of Commerce Implodes on Climate Policy - DeSmog
William Kovacs, the Chamber's vice president for the environment has taken the bureaucratic low road, insisting that members are happy with the Chamber's stone age climate policy and that "so far, no companies have filed a motion that they want the chamber to revisit it."
US Chamber's Long History of Killing Clean Energy ... - DeSmog
All cited embarrassment over Chamber climate policy as the cause. The Chamber brought this rift upon itself. Vice President Bill Kovacs triggered the humiliation during the summer when he suggested that the Environmental Protection Agency be subjected to a Scopes monkey trial to review the science behind man-made climate change.
:{PDF:(style="margin:-0.2em 0px 0px;padding:1px 0.35em 0px;border:0px;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:600;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:middle;border-radius:var(--default-border-radius);display:inline-block;position:relative;user-select:none;top:-1px;background-color:#d0d0d0;"):}: Chamber of Obstruction: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's ...
Finally, the Chamber's messaging about climate change became markedly more extreme, dramatic, and aggressive during the 2000's, likely related to the hiring of William Kovacs as Vice President of its Environment, Technology, and Regulatory Affairs group. Overall, however, the U.S. Chamber combined these discourses to form a recurring argument:
Inganni, falsi studi, lobbying, così la Camera di ...
Il messaggio della Camera sul cambiamento climatico è diventato più estremo e aggressivo durante gli anni Duemila, afferma il rapporto, periodo che coincide con l'assunzione di William Kovacs come vicepresidente del gruppo Ambiente, Tecnologia e Affari Regolamentari della USCC.
US Chamber of Commerce - DeSmog
Bill Kovacs, the Chamber's vice president for the environment, technology, and regulatory affairs, tried to sweep aside the issue, saying "At the end of the debate, there were no members asking to change our policy." 17 Jeanette Pablo, an executive with PNM Resources, recounted events differently :
Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) - DeSmog
Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) - DeSmog Consumer Energy Alliance ( CEA) Background The Consumer Energy Alliance ( CEA) is an energy industry PR and government affairs organization founded by Republican lobbyist Michael Whatley of HBW Resources, a leading proponent of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the Canadian tar sands industry. [1], [2], [3]
Thousands of Fossil Fuel 'Observers' Attended ... - DeSmog
Credit: Ashley Braun, DeSmog The data compiled stretches from COP1 in 1995 to COP24 in December 2018 and paints a picture of corporate attendance at UNFCCC meetings over these years. Some corporations like Exxon, Shell and Chevron and trade associations like Edison Electric Institute have been there every year from the beginning with one or ...