API3

this node is mostly desmog? opensecrets? list of orwellian fronts (surprising # of univ]

esp renta for offshore drilling see explore offshore, many mini POC CoC and congressional caucuses ( ntbcw/ vs caucasians)

---

often do not report $

acctable US

...2010-2012: American Action Network Received $285,000 In Contributions From Oil And Gas Industry

Organizations

2010: American Natural Gas Alliance Contributed $35,000 To American Action Network. [Opensecrets,

Accessed 3/11/21]

2012: American Petroleum Institute Contributed $250,000 To American Action Network.[Opensecrets,

Accessed 3/11/21]

...

American Action Network Has Been Funded By Corporate

Contributions Such As PhRMA

SUMMARY: American Action Network “has been one of the most prominent nonprofits for funneling dark

money.” While it is likewise unclear exactly who funds AAN, it is clear that AAN receives a significant amount

of money from special interests.

• Between 2009 and 2017, AAN received $12 million from Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of

America (PhRMA), the top lobbying group for the pharmaceutical industry.

• Over the same timeframe, AAN received $3.3 million from the health insurer Aetna.

• In 2017 alone, AAN also received a combined $6.8 million between contributions from Business

Roundtable and the Retail Industry Leaders Association. AAN has also received considerable funding

from oil and gas industry groups such as American Natural Gas Alliance and American Petroleum

Institute, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from 2010-2012 alone.

• PhRMA was reported to have contributed $4.5 million to AAN in 2019, making it their top political

recipient.

• AAN has yet to release info on their 2020 spending to the FEC.

American Action Network Received Millions Of Dollars From Special

Interests

American Action Network Has Not Revealed Its Contributions For The 2020 Cycle

American Action Network Did Not Disclose Its 2020 Spending To The FEC. “AAN, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit

aligned with Republican House leadership that does not disclose its donors, did not disclose any of its

spending to the FEC during the 2020 election cycle.” [Open Secrets, 5/13/21]

Lack Of Disclosure Came As The Group Spent Over 49 Million Into Political Ads And Made $26 Million

In Contributions To Super PAC Congressional Leadership Fund. “American Action Network, Republican

House leadership’s 501(c)(4) nonprofit that has disclosed none of its donors or spending to the FEC, has

poured over $9 million into political advertising boosting GOP congressional candidates and more than $26

million into political contributions to the Congressional Leadership Fund, House Republicans’ super PAC that

shared staff and resources with American Action Network.” [Open Secrets, 10/30/20]

American Action Network Received Millions Of Dollars In Contributions From

PhRMA, Top Lobbying Group For Pharmaceutical Industry

2019: PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research And Manufacturers Of America) Contributed $4.5 Million To

AAN In 2019, Making IT PhRMA’s Top Political Contributions

---

politico 5/14

keystone-xl-pipeline-transcanada-barack-obama-106473

keystone XL isn’t pumping oil yet — and may never be — but in the Washington, D.C., political industry it’s already a gusher.

The TransCanada pipeline has been stuck in limbo for over half a decade now; last month, President Barack Obama again postponed a decision on the project, likely until after the 2014 elections.

Yet in just a few years, the political debate over Keystone has exploded into an entire sector of the Washington influence economy. Funded by multibillion-dollar oil companies, labor unions and ultrarich environmentalists, the fight has filtered into every crack and crevice of the nation’s capital — all for a project some advocates on both sides privately concede wouldn’t be an environmental or economic game-changer.

( Also on POLITICO: Harry Reid: Kochs ‘main causes’ of climate change)

From advertisements blanketing Metro stops near Capitol Hill and the State Department to TV commercials saturating the Sunday morning talk shows, to print and digital promos in this publication and others, Keystone has been virtually omnipresent. Well over 100 lobbyists have registered to lobby the issue. Top consultants from Obama’s campaigns have signed up on both sides. The pro-pipeline American Petroleum Institute holds regular war councils to plot strategy and has shelled out millions promoting the project; just this week, API spent more than $50,000 on radio ads promoting Keystone in states with competitive 2014 Senate races.

Longtime Beltway operators say the scope of the Keystone battle has grown to an astonishing scale — perhaps the largest ever for a standoff over energy and the environment, and at the very least one that rivals the years-long and decades-old fights over acid rain and Arctic drilling.

The largely symbolic nature of the Keystone issue makes the titanic spending involved all the more striking. Political observers and even some industry officials and activists question all the activity surrounding a project that — according to many estimates — wouldn’t create more than a few dozen permanent jobs or exacerbate climate change in a significant way.

That means this whole advocacy campaign is probably just a small down payment on what the country will see when the harder-edged energy issues — strict new power plant regulations expected from the administration this summer, or a renewed legislative debate on climate change — come into focus in the months and years ahead.

( Also on POLITICO: Little hope for Keystone vote)

“All of this stuff has been through an arms race,” said Carl Pope, the former Sierra Club chief who has had a front-row seat for decades of environmental fights. “The biggest battles we fought used a fraction of the resources.”

For all the money flowing into the Keystone issue, said David Tamasi, a senior vice president at Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, there is “little space for new information or arguments” in the debate at this point.

“It’s become almost easier for the president and project proponents to fall into a comfortable partisan crouch, because the issue has been so defined along political fault lines,” said Tamasi, whose firm worked for a time on Keystone for the government of Alberta.

It’s difficult to pin down the exact cost of the Keystone saga, since nonprofit and private-sector advocacy groups don’t have to disclose their revenue and spending like conventional political campaigns. But the sum is clearly well into the tens of millions of dollars — and because the pipeline project remains frozen in place, that makes almost everyone involved in the political debate a winner.

( PHOTOS: ‘Cowboys and Indians’ Keystone XL protest)

Meet the ‘grass roots’

Besides bankrolling TV ads and hiring an army of lobbyists, advocates on both sides of the Keystone fight have spent millions mobilizing the public — or at least creating the illusion of mass mobilization.

On the pro-pipeline side, that has meant setting up an array of self-described “grass-roots” groups with generic-sounding names — the API-funded entities Energy Nation and Energy Citizens, for example — to build public support through social media, advertising and petitions.

Nebraskans for Jobs & Energy Independence is another such entity. It was set up ostensibly as a vehicle for native Nebraskans to channel their support for building the pipeline. But the group’s ties to national organizations lobbying for the pipeline’s approval are extensive.

It was founded by a local labor official with LIUNA, the national builders union that supports Keystone; Michael Whatley, a lobbyist and executive for the Texas-based Consumer Energy Alliance, sits on the organizing group’s board. NJEI once listed a TransCanada official as an officer in its tax documents (that official is no longer affiliated with the group).

( Also on POLITICO: The green case against Keystone)

Barry Rubin, a former head of the Nebraska Democratic Party and the pro-pipeline group’s vice chairman, was candid about its role.

“Are we a front group for building the pipeline? Sure, proud to be,” he said in an interview.

Not all the front groups, shell entities and opulently funded “grass-roots” organizations are quite so blunt about their advocacy. API, the industry group with virtually unlimited resources, has established a slew of organizations aimed at drumming up Keystone support; API’s president, Jack Gerard, was inspired by the Obama campaign’s savvy Web and voter-mobilization operations, according to an aide.

API boasts a more than 23 million-person “grass-roots network” made up of individuals who have spoken or written on behalf of the industry, though it’s unclear how API arrived at that number. Groups such as Energy Citizens promote API talking points on their websites and tout testimonials that support the industry’s views on oil and gas. (Obama “needs to get off his hands on this issue,” wrote Joe B. from Colorado.)

Among the groups funded by API is Vets4Energy, which API says has 1,400 members (citing privacy concerns, the group declined to provide a member list) and has recruited veterans to press for the pipeline on Capitol Hill. Another is Oil Sands Fact Check, a group that aggressively rebuts assertions that the pipeline would cause environmental devastation. The latter group, run through the firm FTI Consulting, often sends representatives to anti-Keystone protests and emails reporters to highlight low attendance numbers.

Vets4Energy organized a recent pro-Keystone news conference with Nebraska Rep. Lee Terry and North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven. Both Republicans demanded action on the pipeline in front of a small handful of reporters — and a throng of Keystone-backing veterans associated with the group.

“The greatest generation conquered Nazi Germany in a little over four years,” Terry said. “But here we are, five years after the permits have been filed to build the Keystone XL pipeline, and we’re still waiting.”

Keystone foes with smaller budgets have nevertheless established national operations of comparable sophistication, often hiring brand-name Democratic firms to help. They have coordinated activities between national groups like the League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council, and activist organizations like environmentalist Bill McKibben’s 350.org — often with the help of nationally known political consultants. McKibben’s group has paid thousands of dollars to the liberal PR firm FitzGibbon Media to amplify its message.

On its website, powerhouse Democratic firm Global Strategy Group touts its role in creating an umbrella coalition of anti-Keystone interests, dubbed All Risk, No Reward, which has held events and run television ads opposing the pipeline.

Acknowledging that “public opinion on [Keystone] is very mixed,” GSG’s online case study states: “GSG organized opportunities for experts to speak directly with top reporters and media outlets, planned and executed several high profile events, and earned top flight coverage in the nation’s most prominent print and broadcast media.”

Lower-profile groups have played an influential role in the pipeline fight: The progressive Bold Nebraska worked with state landowners to challenge Keystone’s intended route, while an eclectic collection of environmental and tribal groups calling itself the Cowboy and Indian Alliance gathered for an April protest on the National Mall — complete with teepees and horses.

It’s all come a long way since 2008, when McKibben and a band of activists based at Vermont’s Middlebury College started 350.org to advocate for action on climate change. Since then, McKibben has helped organize protests against the pipeline in front of the White House that have resulted in well over 1,000 arrests.

“Everyone is working together in a pretty unprecedented way,” McKibben said, calling the collaboration across diverse groups “the greatest joy of the whole fight, since we’re badly going to need unity for all the battles against the fossil fuel industry to come.”

The consulting ‘arms race’

With the fight over Keystone now more than five years old — TransCanada filed its first permit application in 2008 — it’s almost harder to find a consultant or lobbyist in Washington who hasn’t been involved than one who is.

Since 2009, advocates directly employed by TransCanada have reported $6.7 million in lobbying expenses related to Keystone. (A TransCanada official said after the publication of this story that $3.8 million was spent exclusively on the pipeline, as opposed to the broader TransCanada agenda.) A second Canadian entity, the In Situ Oil Sands Alliance, has reported spending $1.7 million.

But those sums only begin to approach the total cost of the Keystone lobbying campaign, since many interest groups — including companies such as Shell and Exxon, and umbrella organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — disclose massive, unitemized lobbying expenses, with Keystone just one of the many issues their advocates address.

API, for example, has disclosed spending $22 million in lobbying reports that include Keystone as a target issue. For the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, that figure was nearly $15 million.

Pipeline opponents have spent a fraction of those totals, but the expenses still run into the millions: The League of Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council and National Wildlife Federation spent a combined $3.1 million on lobbying campaigns that touched on Keystone.

The pro-Keystone coalition includes some of the most prominent names in Washington influence, including former Reagan White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein and former Michigan Gov. John Engler, both registered to lobby on behalf of Keystone for the Business Roundtable, and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist. Former Democratic Reps. Allen Boyd of Florida, John Tanner of Tennessee and Michael Arcuri of New York are all registered pro-Keystone lobbyists.

At the heart of the operation is API, the deep-pocketed industry alliance that employs a long list of lobbyists, along with an unknown number of consultants who are said to sign nondisclosure agreements keeping all their API work strictly confidential. Two lobbyists connected to the Keystone fight said API holds regular huddles with a collection of interested groups, looping in powerful interests like the Chamber, Business Roundtable, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and National Association of Manufacturers.

TransCanada and its Canadian allies have thrown money at a number of D.C. firms, including white-shoe lobbying outfits like Bryan Cave LLP and Dutko, and the Democratic super-PR firm SKDKnickerbocker, which includes former White House communications director Anita Dunn and former Clinton-Gore adman Bill Knapp among its partners. This week, CEA released polling from the Democratic firm Hickman Analytics showing public support for Keystone in Iowa, Michigan, Montana and New Hampshire.

What Keystone opponents lack in lobbying muscle — they largely rely on the in-house lobbyists of national environmental groups — they make up for with a lineup of political consultants that looks like the roster of a presidential campaign.

Some literally are right off the roster of a presidential campaign: Steyer’s group hired Obama-linked companies like the TV firm GMMB and the pollsters at Benenson Strategy Group to plan a national advocacy campaign. The GSG team that worked for the League of Conservation Voters on organizing the All Risk, No Reward coalition included former White House spokesman Bill Burton; that coalition, in turn, has hired the Democratic firm New Partners to do its PR.

The finances of many anti-Keystone groups are opaque, but at least some of them have benefited from Steyer’s largesse: In 2013, LCV received $500,000 from a group funded by the hedge fund mogul, according to Federal Election Commission reports. In September, NextGen Climate Action gave $30,00 to the Chesapeake Climate Leadership Alliance and $125,000 to the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, the political arms of two anti-Keystone groups that recently co-sponsored the Cowboys and Indians protest.

Pope, the former Sierra Club head, said that these days it’s far easier for groups of all sizes to engage in grass-roots mobilization — real or manufactured — thanks to social media. They’re not collecting petition signatures by hand anymore: “We had to have people with clipboards in parks,” Pope recalled.

The air war

Keystone wouldn’t be a full-fledged Washington advocacy fight without plenty of television commercials — many of them aimed squarely at the D.C. market. As much as the players on all sides of Keystone want to marshal public opinion in their favor, the ad spending reveals who their real audience is.

Both TransCanada and Steyer’s anti-Keystone vehicle bought ample Beltway airtime, particularly during the all-important Sunday morning talk shows. NextGen spent $340,000 on local broadcast airtime last September to run 90-second ads over the course of several Sundays, according to information shared by the tracking firm MunKato ADvantage. The group also bought national cable ads during that time, including CNN on Sundays.

TransCanada answered the spending a month later, putting about $300,000 into local broadcast and cable TV ads in October, according to MKAD.

The company says it launched the first paid media in its history in 2011 to combat opposition to the pipeline and estimates it has done 3,500 interviews with reporters since 2010. Over the course of 2013, the Canadian company spent approximately $700,000 in the all-important Washington media market; this year, it has already shelled out an additional $159,000 to reach viewers in the nation’s capital.

Both entities — TransCanada and NextGen — have purchased airtime elsewhere but in markedly lower volumes. (A recent NextGen ad campaign targeting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio cost about $7,000, MKAD said.)

The behemoth on the airwaves is API: Since 2012, the group has spent more than $18 million on local broadcast and cable television advertising, pushing a range of industry priorities including Keystone and reaching markets from Little Rock to Pittsburgh to Sioux Falls, the MKAD numbers show.

But many of the API ads have been straightforward Keystone advocacy spots aimed directly at D.C. The group spent more than a quarter-million dollars pushing Keystone on Washington local broadcast and cable — in July 2013 alone.

Unlike NextGen, which discloses its political vendors in FEC reports, API is under no such obligation. There’s little doubt, though, that a handful of GOP media firms have profited handsomely.

The ads have likely helped push public opinion at least modestly in favor of the pipeline: A Pew survey released in March showed that 61 percent of Americans support the project.

But that’s only slightly higher than in March of 2012, when 57 percent of Americans told Gallup they favored building Keystone — and Mitt Romney featured the pipeline in his first general election ad.

“What would a Romney presidency look like?” the ad began. “Day One: President Romney immediately approves the Keystone Pipeline, creating thousands of jobs that Obama blocked.”

• FILED UNDER:
• CONGRESS,
• WHITE HOUSE,
• OIL,
• OIL AND GAS,
• STATE DEPARTMENT,

https:/**/influencemap.org/**influencer/American-Petroleum-Institute-API

sum:

Climate Lobbying Overview: The American Petroleum Institute appears to be broadly hostile to progressive climate policy. It does not seem to fully support the need to drastically cut emissions to limit global temperature increase to below 2C and seems to have pushed a deregulatory agenda over ambitious climate action. It does not seem to support the transition of the energy mix, emphasizing the importance of oil and gas to the American economy and opposing measures to limit fossil fuel development. Furthermore, it also appears to not support several other policies intended to cut emissions such as renewable fuel standards and carbon taxation.

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: The American Petroleum Institute appears to be broadly unsupportive of progressive climate policy in its top-line messaging. Although in various comments throughout 2020, it has indicated general support for unspecified levels of emissions reductions to respond to climate change, this does not appear to be aligned with IPCC advice. For example, in July 2020, it appeared to question the feasibility of reaching net-zero emissions, following statements in December 2019 that the technology “does not yet exist” to limit temperature rise to well below 2°C.

It appears to emphasize that climate policies should not compromise economic growth, as well as appearingto prioritize market-based mechanisms over other kinds of policy. In March 2021, it was reported that the API would change its position and start to support carbon pricingas the "primary government climate policy instrument to reduce CO2 emissions", while still appearing to not support other "prescriptive regulatory action". 

Comments from CEO Mike Sommers in December 2020 also appear to suggest that government regulation to respond to climate change is unnecessary. In his keynote speech for the API's annual State of American Energy report in 2021, Sommers said 'Mandates get us nowhere', and that the surest way to bring recovery to a stop following COVID-19 was with 'more regulations, more taxes, more restrictions on access' to federal lands and waters for oil and gas development.

The American Petroleum Institute has not taken a formal position on theParis Agreement but in December 2019 stated it supported the “ambition” of the agreement. This position was repeated in its 2021 State of American Energy report, however, in the same report, API called the goals of the Paris Agreement ‘aggressive’ and seemed to be ambiguous as to whether the U.S. should participate in meeting the goals.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: The American Petroleum Institute appears to be highly opposed to specific climate-related regulations and since the 2016 US election, the group seems to have promoted a deregulatory agenda in the country over ambitious policy to respond to climate change. API has continued to promote this deregulatory agenda in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 crisis, advocating President Trump waive testing and reporting requirements for a range of policies, including those relevant for GHG emissions.

The API has also continued to oppose specific policies intended to cut emissions. In October 2020, it stated it would oppose any carbon tax that would increase the price of US oil and gas exports, following comments from February 2019 submitted to the Pennsylvania House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee that “New and increased taxes… can only slow growth and investment.”In March 2021, the API announced an apparent change in its position to support carbon pricing, but still stopped short of explicitly endorsing a carbon tax. In addition, the API has heavily criticized the Renewable Fuels Standard, tweeting in April 2020 that “it is time to get rid of this broken mandate”. Furthermore, in November 2019, the API directly advocated against the EPA’s proposed increases in biofuel blending requirements under the Renewable Energy Standard. API has again called for the repeal of the RFS in January 2021.[ETHANOL?]

Until January 2021, the API appeared to strongly oppose regulation of methane emissions, supporting the EPA rollback of methane regulations in August 2020, reportedly **having previously met with White House and EPA staff in an attempt to loosen these regulations.In addition, in the first quarter of 2020, API appears to have **opposedmore ambitious oil well bonding legislation that would require industry to commit more money to fix methane leaks from abandoned wells.

In January 2021, however, the API appears to have reversedits position on the federal and direct regulation of methane and has now stated it supports such a policy. This follows Total S.A revoking its membership to API after the industry association's State of American Energy address. In its communications on methane regulation, API has stated it would support 'sensible' and 'workable' regulations. It remains unclear at this point what API deems sensible and workable with regard to methane regulation. In May 2021, the API appeared to not fully support an ambitious implementation of methane regulation under the PIPES Act, stating in a submission to that "stringent regulatory mandates... must consider the cost to ratepayers and the ability of utilities to effectively comply". In September 2021, the API coordinated with other oil and gas industry groups to send a joint letter to the Committee on Environment and Public Works opposing the Methane Emissions Reduction Act of 2021, which would introduce a tax on methane emissions from oil and gas operations.

Positioning on Energy Transition:API does not appear to support the transition of the energy mix.In its public messaging, it has repeatedly stressed the importance of oil and gas to the US economy and US national security and in June 2019 argued that oil and gas “will supply more than half of America’s energy needs for decades to come”.[ROWE]

API’s preferred method of reducing emissions appears to becoal-to-natural-gas switching, which it also claimsis essential to support renewable energy expansion. However, it shows mixed support for government measures to actually phase coal out of the energy mix. In August 2019, it appeared to oppose government intervention to prohibit new or expanded coal mines, but in May 2019, it opposed legislation in Ohio that would introduce subsidies for coal power plants and in July 2018, it appeared to oppose federal plans to bailout uneconomic coal plants.

It appears to have lobbied heavily in favor of measures that will help maintain a high GHG energy mix, for example in November 2020, supporting the removal of restrictions on oil and gas production in theArctic National Wildlife Refuge, as well as suggesting punitive measures, such as preventing access to Covid-19 relief funding, for banks that have chosen not to fund Arctic-drilling projects.

API appears to oppose government interventionthat will limit fossil fuel development. For example, in September 2020, API opposed an expanded moratorium on offshore oil and gas development off the coast of Florida and in November 2020, CEO Mike Sommers stated that API would use ‘“every tool at its disposal” including legal action’ to block a proposed ban on fracking on federal land and water.

Furthermore, statements from August 2020 suggest API appears to support continued subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, arguing these are “tax loopholes and deductions available to all industries”. These positions have been repeated in its 2021 State of American Energy Report, in which API argues against a ban on fracking, opposing restrictions on federal waters and land for oil and gas production, the weakening of the National Environmental Policy Act and renewalof the Nationwide Permit 12 program– both of which serve to make permitting approval processes for oil and gas infrastructure quicker and easier.

:{In addition, API does not appear to support the electrification of transport.:{ In the first half of 2020, API launched the Transportation Fairness Alliance, a coalition described by Desmog as intended “to counter policies designed to accelerate the transition away from petroleum-powered transportation”. API appears to have opposed several specific policies to encourage the electrification of transport in 2020, including the rebate for drivers who trade in ICE vehicles for EVs as well as financial incentives for electric vehicles. In its 2021 State of American Energy report, API again opposed policies designed to incentivize the uptake of electric vehicles, arguing that subsidies, credits and sales mandates, that favor electric vehicles, like those in California, would ‘hinder America’s progress:(style="background-color:#ffcc66ff"):}:’.}:

---

InfluenceMap 

Score F

2x?

https://yyy.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-companies-climate-crisis-pr-spending#top

activists say Democratic climate proposals won’t be able to pass until lawmakers put a stop to oil companies trying to rebrand themselves

Emily Holden in Washington

Wed 8Jan 2020

America’s oil companies are trying to rebrand themselves as part of the solution to the climate crisis, launching a campaign to counter top Democrats’ proposals to rapidly cut pollution from the power plants and cars that run on the industry’s petroleum and natural gas.

They say natural gas – a fossil fuel that emits heat-trapping carbon dioxide – is helping to slow climate disruption by providing an alternative to coal.

[How vested interests tried to turn the world against climate science

Read more]

“We’re taking our message of energy progress to every corner of the country to show just what’s at stake in Washington and in state capitols around the country,” said Mike Sommers, CEO of the oil trade group the American Petroleum Institute (API), on a press call announcing the plan.

The campaign is part of a strategy in which the oil industry has funneled billions of dollars into its defense, threatening to outpace climate action advocates, say frustrated environmental activists who are increasingly calling on Democrats in Congress to take a tougher line on the sector.

But Sommers depicted a dark future if a presidential candidate who wants to ban fracking for natural gas wins the 2020 election: millions of jobs lost, hundreds of billions of dollars more for household energy costs and a global recession.

However, opponents of the industry say the only path to significant US climate action is through legislation and that lawmakers won’t be able to legislate unless they reveal how the industry has controlled the public dialogue around climate change and put a stop to its misdeeds.

Geoffrey Supran, a research associate who studies global warming politics at Harvard University, is urging House committees to demand more information from oil companies about their influence over public policy. Supran said obtaining corporate documents is “one of the most important actions Congress could take to address the climate crisis”.

“The reality is that as much as we know about fossil fuel interests’ denial and delay, we’ve really found those skeletons in the closet just by looking through a tiny keyhole – everything we know is based on just a few hundred documents scrounged from various sources,” Supran said. “From my perspective every indication of this evidence is once that closet door gets blown open, the skeletons are going to come tumbling out.”

Walking through Washington’s national airport this holiday season, travelers saw a type of advertisement that is becoming more mainstream – it pops up on social media, in commercial breaks for streaming video services, in newspapers and on the radio. A friendly-looking older woman in a hard hat beams at the camera. “Thanks to natural gas, the US is leading the way in reducing emissions,” the sign reads.

The ad campaign, called We’re On It, is sponsored by API – which represents the oil companies that have contributed significantly to the climate crisis.

While it’s true that US climate pollution is declining in large part because of the switch from coal to natural gas, scientists say far more drastic action is needed to slow climate change. And forecasts show natural gas threatening continued progress.

As the American public has become more aware of the climate crisis, oil companies have fought back.

Over roughly the last three decades, five major US oil companies have spent a total of at least $3.6bn on advertisements – not counting their investments in public relations programs like sponsored beach clean-ups, or their influence through trade associations, dark money groups and campaign donations.

[Activists gather with signs outside the American Petroleum Institute during the global climate action week in Washington DC, on 23 September 2019.]

Advertising spending has increased as politicians have paid more attention to climate change and API’s campaign comes as progressive candidates bidding for the White House, such as the US senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, propose to ban fracking – a drilling method that has unlocked huge supplies of natural gas and driven down the cost of the fuel.

Any renewed investigation from Congress could reveal more about how the industry has tried to sway public opinion.

Investigative reporting has already shown that Exxon has known since at least the 1960s that its products were causing global warming. But Exxon has fought back, saying it is the victim of “a coordinated campaign perpetuated by activist groups with the aim of stigmatizing ExxonMobil”.

Exxon touts itself instead as an answer to the climate crisis.The top advertisement on Exxon’s YouTube page touts research on making biofuels from algae in order to cut climate pollution, but the technique is currently prohibitively expensive, and the research represents a tiny portion of Exxon’s budget.

In response to questions from the Guardian, an Exxon spokesman, Casey Norton, said Exxon is “committed to doing our part”.

“The world faces a dual challenge: meeting growing demand for energy while also reducing environmental impacts, including the risks of climate change,” Norton said.

Norton maintains that “all forms of energy are needed”, including natural gas and renewables, although scientists have concluded humans will have to stop using fossil fuels entirely to stem the crisis.

In the call with reporters, API’s CEO took a similar stance. He acknowledged the industry has a responsibility to help slow emissions that are causing rising temperatures, but he said the demand for affordable energy is growing and American fossil fuel companies will meet it.

Pressed to commit to any significant goal to curb emissions, Sommers said API could back some bipartisan legislation to incentivize technology that would capture carbon dioxide so that it cannot enter the atmosphere.

“That’s legislation that’s supported by far-right Republicans and far-left Democrats, but it’s some place in the middle where we think we can meet and we can work together on this key priority,” Sommers said.

Critics of the oil industry say the Democrat-led House should be aggressive in seeking to counter the industry’s narrative. Some want Democrats to call executives into hearings and subpoena internal records about their influence campaigns – one of the most powerful tools available to Congress.

But that hasn’t happened. Instead of going directly for the oil companies, House committees have instead been holding dozens of hearings and introducing legislation about ways to cut pollution and help people affected by the climate crisis.

“Our oversight staff decided that OK, rather than kind of punching an industry that’s already pretty down in the public image, there are plenty of other things they also needed and wanted to pursue, so subpoenaing big oil just didn’t really rise to the top of the heap,” the staffer said.

Supran, who works with Harvard climate politics expert Naomi Oreskes, says they have a collection of information that could help Democrats determine which questions to ask and which documents to demand.

“Historical record points to a number of individuals, documents, and questions that could help Congress get to the bottom of how the fossil fuel regime misled America,” Supran said.

The other route – which Democrats are already pursuing – is state lawsuits against companies. But those challenges could take much longer and aren’t guaranteed to succeed.

Robert Brulle, a visiting professor of environmental sociology at Brown University who co-authored the research tallying oil spending on ads, said the findings are just the tip of the iceberg. Brulle has previously found that more than $2bn was spent lobbying Congress on climate legislation between 2000 and 2016.

He says lawmakers should investigate the oil industry the way the former congressman Henry Waxman took on tobacco companies in the 1990s.

“I think what we’ll find is that the fossil fuel campaigns are going to dwarf what the tobacco industry did. It’s an order of magnitude larger,” Brulle said.

Some accuse Democrats of fearing a backlash from the oil industry – which still donates to Democratic campaigns. They say moderate Democrats might be trying to stay civil with major companies because it will be easier to pass climate legislation with their support.

But it’s hard to imagine the industry backing substantial action that would limit oil production and use – which scientists say is required to avoid catastrophe.

I think what we’ll find is that the fossil fuel campaigns are going to dwarf what the tobacco industry did

Robert Brulle

So far, congressional efforts have only scratched the surface of the sector’s influence. In October, the oversight committee reviewed evidence of how much Exxon has known about the climate crisis and for how long. The Democrat-only climate committee in the Senate also held a hearing on dark money and climate change. The Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse urged his colleagues in the House to use their majority to get tougher with oil companies – subpoenaing their records if necessary.

“When we catch the fossil fuel industry spending money in these campaigns, we’re only seeing a sliver of the total operation,” Whitehouse said in a more recent interview with the Guardian. “I think it’s hard to counter their message effectively because remember – they have a $600bn annual subsidy that they’re defending, according to the [International Monetary Fund].

“The idea that some other entity, particularly some struggling charitable organization, is going to be able to go toe-to-toe in spending and outspend them is not really feasible.”

Despite fossil fuel companies massive spending, they have continued to lose public support. Elected officials just haven’t followed the shift.

A majority – 60% of Americans – want to “dramatically reduce” fossil fuel use in 10 or 20 years, according to Gallup. And between 2013 and 2019, the percentage of people who wanted to emphasize oil production has dropped from 46% to 28%.

“If you take climate change seriously, then you have to think about what your path is to getting a serious climate bill,” Whitehouse said. “And the path to a serious climate bill requires disabling the fossil fuel industry’s obstruction apparatus that has been the thing that has prevented that from happening.”

ref

2x?

https://yyy.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/10/vested-interests-public-against-climate-science-fossil-fuel-lobby

How vested interests tried to turn the world against climate science

For decades fossil fuel majors tried to fight the consensus – just as big tobacco once disputed that smoking kills

Felicity Lawrence, David Pegg and Rob Evans

Thu 10 Oct 2019

In 1998 a public relations consultant called Joe Walker wrote to the American Petroleum Institute (API), a trade association representing major fossil fuel companies, with a proposed solution to a big problem.

In December the previous year, the UN had adopted the Kyoto protocol, an international treaty that committed signatory countries to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in order to avert catastrophic climate breakdown.

Reducing emissions represented a direct threat to the profits of fossil fuel companies and the API was working on an industry response.

“As promised, attached is the Global Climate Science Communications Plan that we developed during our workshop last Friday,” Walker wrote. The workshop had involved senior executives from fossil fuel companies, including the oil multinationals Exxon – later part of ExxonMobil – and Chevron, and the gas and coal utility Southern Company, and a handful of rightwing thinktanks.

Walker outlined a vision of a comprehensive, international campaign to change public opinion on the climate crisis by casting doubt on the scientific research, presenting it as unreliable when the overwhelming majority of scientists had reached consensus.

The communications plan involved finding sympathetic scientists, identifying thinktanks to fund that would produce helpful reports, and working through supposed grassroots groups to hold debates questioning the consensus on global heating, along with a constant flow of media briefings manufacturing uncertainty.

The plan sounded much like a 1960s PR campaign devised by the tobacco industry to delay controls by questioning the science showing that smoking killed. Some of the people involved were in fact tobacco campaign veterans.

The fossil fuel industry had been making use of its lobbying group, the Global Climate Coalition, since 1989 to stress the uncertainties of climate science. But by the late 1990s companies such as BP and Shell were beginning to withdraw from it as public doubt about the problem became increasingly untenable in the face of the evidence.

“Project goal: a majority of the American public, including industry leadership, recognises that significant uncertainties exist in climate science,” the 1998 Walker API memo began. A series of strategic goals was elaborated. It said “victory will be achieved when … recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the conventional wisdom” and “those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality”.

After the memo was leaked to the New York Times, the industry said the plan was only a proposal and was never put into effect.

Climate campaigners such as Greenpeace say they believe a highly organised effort by the fossil fuel industry to question climate science, involving scientists and some thinktanks in receipt of fossil fuel industry funding, nevertheless succeeded in the following years in shifting public opinion away from urgent action.

In 2010 the American sociologists Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright identified conservative thinktanks, along with US conservative politicians, media and fossil fuel corporations, as crucial components in a “denial machine” that emerged in the 1990s.

The activity of this machine would peak when the industry’s financial interests came under threat, most notably in the years after 2007 and the election of Barack Obama, who had pledged to regulate and cap emissions.

[Half a century of dither and denial – a climate crisis timeline

Read more]

Robert Brulle,a professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University in Pennsylvania, published the first peer-reviewed study in 2013 of who was funding what he called the climate change counter-movement that delayed action on the crisis. He found that between 2003 and 2010 more than $500m had been donated by private conservative philanthropic foundations to organisations whose output included material disputing the consensus.

Thinktanks, trade associations and front groups were a key part of the effort, he concluded, with their major funders including foundations affiliated to the fossil fuel magnates the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil, and the ultra-conservative Scaife and Bradley foundations.

Brulle also found evidence of a trend to conceal the sources of funding once campaign groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace and the Climate Disinformation Database started tracking what they called dark money to climate denial from the mid-2000s.

In the second half of that decade, Koch, Scaife, Bradley and ExxonMobil foundation funding to organisations involved in propagating doubt declined while donations to the same organisations via two anonymised vehicles, the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, increased rapidly.

Among the thinktanks most identified with spreading doubt are the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Marshall Institute (which folded in 2015), the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the campaign group Americans for Prosperity.

Elsewhere the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Global Warming Policy Foundation have been prominent publishers of material questioning the consensus on climate science in the UK. These organisations fiercely dispute that any of their work constitutes organised climate change denial.

[Richmond v Chevron: the California city taking on its most powerful polluter

Read more]

Americans for Prosperity, which has received a very substantial part of its funding from the Kochs, helped make resistance to action on climate a feature of Tea Party rallies in the US.

The counter-movement against action wound up to fever pitch in 2009 when it looked as though Obama and the US would sign up to UN climate protocols after the Copenhagen summit due at the end of that year.

Before the summit, individual independent climate experts found themselves subject to devastating attacks. Scientists at the University of East Anglia’s prestigious Climate Research Unit had their emails hacked. The contents of the emails were circulated, with the information they contained having been extracted in a way that suggested the scientists had manipulated their data. A police investigation failed to establish who the hackers were.

The rightwing media labelled it “climategate” and several thinktanks promoted the story enthusiastically. Multiple inquiries would later exonerate the scientists but by then the damage was done; the public’s faith in climate science had been measurably dented.

Half a decade later some fossil fuel industry funding of climate contrarian science was exposed, when Greenpeace found out via freedom of information requests that a prominent academic at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Willie Soon, had attracted more than $1.2m in payments over 14 years from ExxonMobil, Southern Company, the API and a Koch foundation,to the centre for his work. Soon doubted the scientific consensus that emissions were the principal cause of global heating.

:{

}:

He is now an affiliate of the Heartland Institute. Soon strenuously denied that his industry funders had any influence over his conclusions and the Heartland Institute said he was not even aware of who some of the donors to the centre were, making a conflict of interest impossible.

There has been a noticeable moderation of views from those previously involved in questioning the science of climate change. Several now acknowledge global heating is caused by human activity but have shifted focus to arguing that the market and technological innovation rather than government action or international treaties curbing emissions are the best ways to tackle it.

The director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s (CEI) Center for Energy and Environment, Myron Ebell,for example, told the Guardian: “CEI believes strongly that the policies being proposed by climate alarmists to deal with global warming pose much greater threats to human flourishing than do the effects of global warming. Abundant, affordable energy is a necessary condition of human wellbeing but the global energy-rationing policies being pursued, like those in the Paris climate treaty, threaten to consign billions of people around the world to energy poverty and perpetual economic stagnation.”

:{

}:

ExxonMobil, Chevron, Southern Company and the API all said they recognised the seriousness of the climate crisis and the need for business, governments and consumers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The API said the industry as a whole had invested billions of dollars in zero- and low-carbon technologies. Chevron and Southern Company said they had ambitious targets to reduce their carbon footprints. ExxonMobil said its position on climate science in the past had been misrepresented, and that claims regarding what it knew and when had been debunked. None of the companies responded to questions on the communications plan and funding of organisations whose output included doubting the science.

The Koch, Scaife and Bradley Foundations Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund and Americans for Prosperity did not respond to requests for comment.

The thinktanks said the criticisms levelled at them by climate activists and critics seriously mischaracterised their positions. They said the views they published were those of individual affiliates rather than institutional ones. They added that they respected their donors’ privacy but the source of their money did not influence their research or output, which was completely independent. The Heritage Foundation said allegations it had denied climate science were “seriously inaccurate”. It accepted “the climate is changing, the planet is warming and that humans are playing a role”. Instead it described itself as “sceptics of climate catastrophism and costly policies that will drive energy prices higher”.

The Cato Institute said it had never been in the business of “promoting climate science denial”; it did not dispute human activity’s impact on the climate, but believed it was minimal.

no lnx docs see bomb train

https://www.desmog.com/2021/07/09/exxon-tapes-american-petroleum-institutes-lobbying-oil-trains/

Senior ExxonMobil lobbyists were recently exposed by undercover reporting from UnEarthed, an investigative journalism project of Greenpeace, which captured footage of the employees explaining how the oil giant influences policy makers using trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute (API).

The undercover footage revealed Exxon lobbyists boasting about wins for the company under the Trump administration and admitting to continued efforts to sow doubt about climate change and undermine action to tackle the crisis.

The recordings also confirmed the findings of years of DeSmog research on API’s lobbying tactics. “Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes. Did we hide our science? Absolutely not,”Keith McCoy,a senior director in ExxonMobil’s Washington, D.C. government affairs team, told the undercover reporter Lawrence Carter. “Did we join some of these ‘shadow groups’ to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that’s true. But there’s nothing illegal about that. You know, we were looking out for our investments; we were looking out for our shareholders.”

These revelations exposed by UnEarthed and first published by Channel 4 News help shed light on API’s lobbying strategies, particularly when it comes to transporting oil by rail. The rise of fracking in 2009 created a transportation problem in U.S. regions like North Dakota’s Bakken Shale, which lacked sufficient pipelines and other infrastructure to move the sudden glut of oil. In response, the oil industry started ramping up transport of its products by train around 2012, but several high-profile fires and explosions of these oil trains also followed, starting in July 2013.

DeSmog’s coverage of the years-long process of creating new oil train regulations in the wake of 2013’s deadly Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, oil train disaster documented the tactics described by Exxon lobbyist Keith McCoy — and revealed just how effective the company is at watering down efforts by regulatory agencies to protect the public and environment. [twt pix]

after years of covering the regulatory process governing oil trains, one fact stood out: API was almost always leading the process. Even though the process was supposed to be about improving rail safety, the oil industry played the dominant role. Exxon representatives were rarely seen in the many public Congressional or regulatory agency hearings and did not take a public role in fighting the regulations. However, as DeSmog reported, Exxon was meeting in private with federal regulators and arguing against stronger regulations on oil trains.

Much of my book Bomb Trains: How Industry Greed and Regulatory Failure Put the Public at Risk highlights how API successfully uses “The Hill” — i.e. Congress —  to stop regulation and describes the central role the organization plays, as noted in this passage in which National Transportation Safety Board Chair Deborah Hersman asks API representative Lee Johnson when safer rail tank cars could be expected:

In Congressional hearings, at rail industry conferences, and in funding supposedly independent studies of the issue, it was always API dictating what happened on “The Hill.”

As revealed by UnEarthed, Exxon lobbyist McCoy spelled out how it works in the recently released recordings:

“So you start to build out a coalition of associations. Now, companies feed into that privately where we have meetings, but the public face of it are the associations: they go to the Hill, they have these conversations.”

Exxon was rarely mentioned in the oil-by-rail regulatory process even though API was omnipresent. However, as McCoy noted, Exxon is directing API. On the tapes, he described how it worked, saying, “And so the API staff person who worked on that issue, We’d say, you know, ‘Hey Tom, you need to go to The Hill and you need to have a conversation with the committee.’”

This is similar to what Scott Sheffield, CEO of U.S. oil company Pioneer Resources, said in 2020 when he told CNBC that it was Exxon leading discussions on a possible industry bailout and that Exxon “controls the API.”

Exxon’s Slide from a 2014 presentation to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Arguing Against Thicker Tank Shells for Oil Tank Cars

On the tapes released by UnEarthed, McCoy also mentioned another tactic, in this instance regarding the “forever chemicals” PFAS, that trade groups like API also employed to fight oil-by-rail safety regulations and even have repealed the regulations that the Department of Transportation approved in 2015. As UnEarthed reported:

“McCoy claimed that an Exxon-instigated advocacy push had delayed tighter regulations on PFAS by successfully lobbying for a government study of the chemicals.”

These studies are often commissioned by Congress, take years to complete, and then often are used to prevent or repeal regulations.

The reason oil-by-rail needed new regulations is because oil trains kept blowing up when they derailed — with five oil train derailments resulting in large fires by the time API representative Lee Johnson began downplaying the risks of these trains in the 2014 hearings on new regulations In the idyllic town of Lac-Mégantic, that disaster resulted in the death of 47 people. Those people died because the Bakken oil being transported by rail is highly volatile and flammable. The science is very clear on this.

This week was the 8th anniversary of the Lac-Mégantic disaster. Yet today, that highly volatile and flammable oil is still being moved by rail, in part because API fought regulations and won. How? By pushing for more studies of the issue as a delay tactic.

A year after the 2013 accident, oil industry associations funded two studies which were held up as evidence by API CEO Jack Gerard that the volatile Bakken oil shouldn’t be regulated to reduce the risk of explosions and fires in derailments.

“It is essential to separate fact from fiction as we work to enhance the safe transportation of crude oil,” API CEO Jack Gerard said in 2014, “Multiple studies have now debunked the idea that Bakken crude is meaningfully different than other crudes.”

This statement has no basis in science. But it worked to stop proposed regulation and it was helped by a study requested by Congress that was released in mid-2105. The study was immediately touted by API as more proof that Bakken oil should not be regulated.

The API press release at the time stated: “The Department of Energy found no data showing correlation between crude oil properties and the likelihood or severity of a fire caused by a derailment.”

This video shows two members of Congress reading prepared statements in a hearing that used API’s language about that study’s conclusion, word for word[vid hardy]

it should be no surprise that these tactics, first employed by the tobacco industry, were also adopted by other lobbyists, including oil and rail industry lobbyists.

As DeSmog reported, in 2017 the rail industry was able to get regulations requiring modern braking systems for trains repealed based on another congressionally requested study. This government-funded study, however, did not accurately reflect the science on the issue. In this case, the rail industry had even touted the known science for years before reversing course and insisting to the public and lawmakers that it was not valid.

In 2016, Suzanne Lemieux, a representative of the American Petroleum Institute, spoke at an energy-by-rail conference. She argued against the idea that the volatile oil being transported by rail needed to be regulated in a presentation titled, “Crude Oil Volatility: Myth vs. Fact.”

Her message was quite clear.

“I would say that all of these conversations about [how] Bakken is inherently more dangerous, it’s more volatile, etcetera, etcetera, those things from a chemical properties perspective just aren’t true. And so we in the oil and gas industry see this as a very dangerous conversation.”

Forty seven people died because of the oil industry’s dangerous product. However, API took the position that even discussing how to avoid a repeat of the oil train explosion at Lac-Megantic was too dangerous of a conversation to have.

And it worked.

DeSmog contacted Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute inquiring if the two coordinated efforts to influence oil-by-rail regulations.

“As a member-driven organization, we collaborate across our membership on a wide range of policy issues, from advancing smart and effective regulations and strong standards for rail safety to advocating for lower-carbon solutions to tackle climate change,” said API spokeswoman Bethany Aronhalt via email.  “We also continue to advocate for modernized pipeline infrastructure, which is the safest most efficient way to deliver the energy Americans rely on every single day.”

Exxon did not respond other than to ask for specific questions, which were provided, but not answered.

For much greater detail on how the oil-by-rail regulatory process unfolded, read Chapter 4, “Follow the Money,” of my book Bomb Trains, which dives into API’s role in the process.     https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Chapter-4-Follow-The-Money.pdf

2012 990 82 pp?!

srlc southern republican?

SRLC SOUTH CAROLINA 45-2133053 N/A $25,000 EVENT SPONSORSHIP

2012 PO BOX 7786

COLUMBIA,SC 29202

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/130/130433430/130433430_201212_990O.pdf

BP api exxon funded astro front crypto wetlands orgs to punk congress into paying for gulf spill cleanup but also derg ~ wetlands

// awf

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The National Wetlands Coalition, founded in 1989,^[1] has opposed U.S. wetlands policy, saying "the federal government, while seeking to protect wetlands, casts a wide net and imposes burdensome and ineffective regulations on private property that does not function as or provide the ecosystem benefits of high-value wetlands".^[2] Time Magazine called it "a big-biz coalition against wetlands".^[3]

In 1995, the organization consisted of about 60 municipal associations, utilities and major industrial companies, such as Exxon, Texaco and Kerr-McGee.^[4]

The National Wetlands Coalition has been characterized as the quintessential astroturf organization, which is an organization that presents itself as a grassroots organization, but was actually founded by (and is largely funded by) a separate commercial or political organization in order to promote its own agenda, while keeping its relationship to the new organization hidden.

A study by the University of Oklahoma used the National Wetlands Coalition as a specific example to examine the influence of corporate front-group stealth campaigns, in which corporations form associations that, in turn, adopt names that are designed to misrepresent their true intentions.^[5] The results of the study indicated that front-group stealth campaigns were effective in enhancing public perceptions of the front group itself. The National Wetlands Coalition campaigns successfully undermined perceptions of the targeted attitude object, eroding support for any federal efforts to restrict wetlands’ development or regulate developers.

The organization has been relatively inactive since around the late 1990s.^[6] The website was being "reworked" from February 2001 through November 2005;^[7] it went offline in December 2005.^[8]

desmog

API announced the campaign at its annual “State ofAmerican Energy” event, and featured a panel comprised of TV host Mike Rowe and the presidents of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, the Petroleum Equipment and Services Association, and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. [82]

“From Colorado and New Mexico to Ohio and Pennsylvania, natural gas and oil development is energizing economies and improving millions of lives,” API President and CEO Mike Sommers said in prepared remarks.  The campaign’s key focus appears to be combatting efforts that would ban or limit fracking. Sommers declared “he future of energy is at stake, whenever people doubt the value of natural gas and oil in our daily lives....ANGA) announced a merger to create a “single voice promoting the industry” while working under the name of the American Petroleum Institute. ANGA was founded in 2009 and is funded by natural gas producers, and has worked against federal limits on methane emissions. [52]

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

Explore Offshore

The American Petroleum Institute launched its Explore Offshore project in June 2018 “seeking to convince Hispanic and black communities to support the Trump administration’s proposed expansion of offshore drilling,” :{Reuters:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: reported. [72]

“We want to build support in minority communities because the message that increasing the supply of affordable energy and good paying jobs will resonate,” said Erik Milito, API’s director of Upstream and Industry Operations. [72]

Explore Offshore describes itself as a “national coalition that supports offshore energy exploration and production to help supply affordable energy for American consumers, small businesses, and manufacturers.”

“Explore Offshore’s mission is to unite supporters of offshore energy development and promote its benefits and its importance to our nation’s economy and energy security,” its website claims.

Coalition members include representatives from Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia. The :{U.S.:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Chamber of Commerce and a range of local affiliates are listed on its coalition page. [68], [70]

According to Reuters,Explore Offshore has partnered with a number of black and Hispanic business groups including the Virginia, Florida and North Carolina Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and the Florida Black Chamber of Commerce and South Carolina African American Chamber of Commerce. [72] [RECALL API EVENT KAREN H? BOAST OF DIVIRSITY BUT OF INDUSTRY [CEMENT] AND GEOGRAPHY, BUT LATINO GENT? AA SEZ WHAT ABOUT POC BUT HE IS RENTA TOM?]

Only one African-American man, South Carolina African American Chamber of Commerce chairman Stephen Gilchrist, was involved in the group. Gilchrist reportedly “counts [Steve] Bannon as a friend.” While the group identifies itself as a “bipartisan coalition,” its sole Democrat is Jim Webb, who has praised “gallantry” of Confederate soldiers and defended “the venerable Robert E. Lee” according to a *Politico*story on Webb’s roots.[75],[73], [74]

July 24, 2018

Representatives from API and API‘s “Explore Offshore South Carolina” attended a luncheon hosted by the SC African American Chamber of Commerce to discuss “the Economic impacts and safety of Offshore Energy.” [71]

May 16, 2018

Explore Offshore, a “project of the American Petroleum Institute” ran an ad campaign on Facebook promoting offshore drilling in Florida. According to Facebook’s political ad archive, the ads were removed because they lacked a “Paid for by” label while including political content. [68], [69]

The ad text read as follows:

“Contrary to what the opposition wants you to believe, offshore energy exploration has occurred safely alongside marine life, commercial fishing, military activities, and tourism for decades in the Gulf.

‘Not only have these industries co-existed with energy production, but in many cases energy development has stimulated and bolstered investments, increased higher-paying jobs, and supported retail and tourism in coastal towns along the Gulf,’ Cornelia Horner, a spokeswoman with the American Petroleum Institute.

The choice is simple when you have the facts. Say yes to exploring our offshore resources in Florida.”

Stance on Climate Change

May 2017

In its most recent “Climate and Energy” primer, API claims that the use of natural gas is enough to reduce CO2 emissions, and that we should recognize “the many benefits that oil and natural gas provide our nation”:[63]

“CO2 emissions from power generation in 2016 were near 30-year lows, in large part due to greater use of natural gas. And increased use of natural gas in the power generation sector has helped to reduce total  CO2 emissions to their lowest level in nearly 25 years.

“This proves that Americans do not have to make the false choice between utilizing our nation’s energy resources and protecting the environment.

“The oil and gas industry considers climate change a very important issue and is engaging constructively to address this complex global challenge.

United States climate policy must recognize the vital role of petroleum products in modern society, and the many benefits that oil and natural gas provide our nation and the world.”

:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: offered a similar statement onits website.[44]

2015

An archived version of the American Petroleum Institute website admits that “emissions from [energy] production and use may be helping to warm our planet by enhancing the natural greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. That’s why oil and gas companies are also working to reduce their greenhouse emissions.” [42]

A November 2015 “Climate and Energy Primer” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:) released by API suggests there are “uncertainties” with regards to climate change, however still suggests it is a serious problem: [43]

“While we rely on them for most of our energy and will likely do so for years to come, as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes: ‘Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet’s climate. However, they are not sure by how much it will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact effects will be.’ Despite these uncertainties it is clear that climate change is a serious problem that requires research for solutions and effective policies that allow us to meet our energy needs while protecting the environment. That’s why oil and gas companies are working to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”

1998

API‘s 1998 ”Global Climate Science Communications Plan” (PDF), reported by the New York Times and authored by the American Petroleum Institute’s Joe Walker, revealed the institute’s stance on climate change.

According to the plan, “victory will be achieved when”: [5]

• Average citizens “understand” (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the “conventional wisdom”
• Media “understands” (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
• Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current “conventional wisdom”
• Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy
• Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality.”

Under the heading “Climate Reality,” the document continues:

“Unless ‘climate change’ becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be do moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.”

1982

:{InsideClimate News:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: reports that the American Petroleum Institute knew of climate change as early as 1982: A Columbia University report titled “Climate Models and :{CO2:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Warming, A Selective Review and Summary” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:)commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute in 1982, cautioned that global warming “can have serious consequences for man’s comfort and survival.” [49], [50]

American Petroleum Institute Funding (As Donor)

There are 374 transactions on record for theAmerican Petroleum Institute as a Donor in the **Conservative Transparency Database**. Note that not all of the following funding values have been confirmed by DeSmogBlog. [6]

View the attached spreadsheet for further details on the American Petroleum Institute’s funding by year (.xlsx).

:{

}:

WOW NEVER SEEN SO MUCH UNIV, RENTAS AND ORWELLIAN FAKE GRN FRONTS

990 Forms

Key People

API Leadership Team

*Jack Gerard announced on January 24, 2018 that he would step down as API‘s president. [67]

Officers, Trustees, Etc. (Via 990 forms)

Key Past Leadership

• :{Red Cavaney:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:600"):}: — Past President and Chief Executive Officer. [10]
• :{William F. O’Keefe:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:600"):}: — Past executive vice president. [10]
• :{Lee R. Raymond:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:600"):}: — Past Trustee and Vice Chairman. [11]
• :{Philip A. Cooney:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:600"):}: — Past “climate team leader” and lobbyist at API (before 2001). [12]

Actions

March 25, 2021

API announced in a press release that it would endorse a “carbon price policy.” [98]

“Confronting the challenge of climate change and building a lower-carbon future will require a combination of government policies, industry initiatives and continuous innovation,” API President and CEO Mike Sommers said.

However, as noted at :{InfluenceMap:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, this announcement “needs to be viewed in the wider context of the organization’s long history of opposing effective action on climate change.”[99]

“A statement of theoretical support for a market-based carbon price is a long way from agreeing to what will likely need to be strong, binding rules to limit fossil fuel usage & methane emission,” said InfluenceMap Executive Director Dylan Tanner.

“As with all positive-sounding, top-line statements we’ve seen from fossil fuel interests recently, the focus needs to be on details and actions – not just the rhetoric.

“Carbon pricing is, after all, a broad concept.

“Embracing carbon pricing does not necessarily translate into support for effective climate policy until there is a specific piece of legislation or regulation to implement a price.” [99]

InfluenceMap highlighted a number of examples over the prior months of “API’s oppositional approach to proposed climate policy” such as API’s CEO Mike Sommers’ comment in a January 2021 American Energy Keynote Speech where he said scaling back fossil fuel development would  be the “surest way to bring (economic) recovery to a stop.” [99]

API described the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement as “aggressive” in January 2021. In November of 2020, API CEO Mike Sommers promised to fight back against the Biden Administration with every tool at its disposal” if they tried to limit oil and gas development on federal lands. [99]

As noted at *The Washington Post*, environment and climate groups expressed doubts that API’s draft endorsement was significant. [100]

Maya Golden-Krasner, deputy director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, said “the API’s move would be little more than a public relations ploy, and the Biden administration shouldn’t be taking policy cues from the standard polluters’ playbook.” Golden-Krasner added that a “instead of letting producers buy their way out of climate accountability, we need strong regulations to keep fossil fuels in the ground.” [100]

However, The Washington Post noted “API’s biggest members have long been betting on carbon pricing and the likelihood that climate regulation would one day be adopted.” [100]

Oil giant Total, which vowed to combat climate change, quit API, saying it no longer represented its positions or interests. [100]

According to the *Wall Street Journal*, Sommers claimed the decision reflected a change in circumstances since API’s past opposition to carbon pricing. [101]

“As things have continued to evolve, we know that more needs to be done,” Mr. Sommers said. “We also know that climate change is real and we need to do more to address one of the marquee issues of our time.”

January 26, 2021

Following an announcement from newly-elected US President Joe Biden outlining executive ordersfor fossil fuel industry, including achieving a carbon-free power sector by 2035, API responded with claims that “Restricting natural gas and oil development on federal lands and waters risks hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in government revenue for education and conservation programs.” :{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: released OnLocation analysisclaiming, “U.S. energy leadership could be at stake if a federal leasing and development ban is enacted,” that “Nearly 1 million jobs could be lost by 2022,” among other claims. [95], [96], [97]

July 13, 2020

API removed “energy” from its logo, and introduced a new red, blue and gray logo *:{E&E:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: News*reported. [92]

“As part of our logo redesign, we conducted research that found policymakers and global standards customers already had a strong association between API and energy and knew without noting the word that we were standard bearers for policies that support access to affordable, reliable and cleaner energy while providing safety and sustainability standards and certifications around the world,” API said in a statement to E&E News. [92]

E&E news noted that the change echoed a recent rebranding by the Texas-based Vistra Energy Corp. which also announced a switch to Vista Corp, saying energy is “most commonly used to refer to the petroleum/oil and gas sector, of which we are not a part.” [92]

Earlier in 2020, API also began using the phrase “natural gas and oil” rather than “oil and gas.” [92]

According to :{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, the new logo reflects “our industry’s laser-focus on the future, innovation and the evolving role of natural gas and oil in taking us on the journey.”

“In the 12 years since API last updated its brand, the U.S. shale revolution – enabled by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling – has elevated the importance of our domestic natural gas and oil resources,” API wrote on its blog. [93]

June 24–25, 2020

API washighlighted in a lawsuit from the Minnesota Attorney General’s office that also called out Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Koch Industries, Inc., and the Koch-owned Flint Hills Resources LP and Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend for allegedly misleading consumers about climate change. [87]

“When corporations and trade associations break the law and hurt Minnesotans, it’s my job and my duty to hold them accountable. The fraud, deceptive advertising, and other violations of Minnesota state law and common law that the lawsuit shows they perpetrated have harmed Minnesotans’ health and our state’s environment, infrastructure, and economy,” said Attorney General Keith Ellison, as reported in the :{AG:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: office press release.[88]

“Previously unknown internal documents were recently discovered that confirm that Defendants well understood the devastating effects that their products would cause to the climate, including Minnesota, dating back to the 1970s and 1980s. But Defendants did not ever disclose to the public—or to Minnesotans—their actual knowledge that would confirm the very science they sought to undermine. Instead, Defendants, both directly and through proxies, engaged in a public-relations campaign that was not only false, but also highly effective. This campaign was intended to, and did, target and influence the public, and consumers, including in Minnesota,” the lawsuit reads. [89]

Discussing API‘s role:

“API has been a member of at least five organizations that have promoted disinformation about fossil-fuel products to consumers, including the Global Climate Coalition, Partnership for a Better Energy Future, Coalition for American Jobs, Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, and Alliance for Climate Strategies. These front groups were formed to provide climate disinformation and advocacy from a seemingly objective source, when, in fact, they were financed and controlled by ExxonMobil and other sellers of fossil-fuel products. Defendants benefited from the spread of this disinformation.”

On Koch, the lawsuit suggests that the company is liable for the various actions of its numerous subsidiaries involved in the manufacturing, refining, and distribution of petroleum products. It also notes:

“Koch also supports numerous foundations including the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Koch Institute, and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. Koch expects the foundations that it supports to fund groups that further its financial interests. Koch constructively controls how the foundations that it supports direct their philanthropic activities.”

It also notes that, like numerous other oil companies, “Koch also understood climate-change science, the connection to sales of its fossil fuel products, and the potential for catastrophic consequences before the science was widely understood by the general public.”

It highlights what appeared to be a coordinated effort by companies including Koch to “combat climate change ‘alarmists’ through a campaign focused on science, information dissemination, and politics.” It highlights a 2006 memo from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association that outlined how Koch Industries was working with other large corporations including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Southern Company, American Electric Power (AEP), and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

Shortly after, the :{D.C.:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Attorney General’s Officejoined in a similar lawsuit against BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell. The lawsuit alleges the four largest investor-owned oil and gas companies violated the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act by promoting and selling fossil fuel products contributing to global warming, while knowing about the harmful consequences since at least the 1950s. [90]

The lawsuit highlights the industry’s use of fake grassroots groups, such as the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which started out as a front group for tobacco giant Philip Morris in 1993. This group had transitioned to become the Advancement of Sound Science Center in 1997 and was run out of the home of climate science denier Steve Milloy, who most recently worked in public relations for coal company Murray Energy, before being disbanded. [90]

According to a press release from the D.C. Attorney General’s Office, “The [oil] companies not only employed the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition — a fake grassroots citizen group created by Big Tobacco as part of the industry’s misinformation campaign — they also funded and promoted some of the same scientists hired by tobacco companies. These scientists disputed the conclusions of climate researchers, despite not having any training in climate science themselves.” [91]

“For decades, these oil and gas companies spent millions to mislead consumers and discredit climate science in pursuit of profits,” said AG Racine. “The defendants violated the District’s consumer protection law by concealing the fact that using fossil fuels threatens the health of District residents and the environment. OAG filed this suit to end these disinformation campaigns and to hold these companies accountable for their deceptive practices.

March 20, 2020

:{**The Independent**:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:reported the American Petroleum Institute had been accused of “wildly inflating” job numbers in the fracking industry. The report by Food :{&:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Water Watch concluded API had inflated the numbers in “a clear attempt to defend the economically struggling industry that is linked to air, water and climate pollution.” [84], [85]

The API had released a report claiming that more than 7.5 million jobs would be at risk from a fracking ban with 26,000 in Pennsylvania where the fracking industry is a key election issue. The new analysis from Food & Water Watch found that data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on fracking differed significantly from API‘s numbers, and counts 636,000 total jobs, and 26,000 in Pennsylvania.[86]

FWW Research Director Alison Grass said: “It’s more important than ever to accurately assess how many workers are employed in the oil and gas fracking industries. For years, the industry has concocted wildly inflated employment numbers in an effort to blunt criticism of the toll that fracking has taken on our air, water, and climate. [84]

“Our analysis offers convincing evidence that employment benefits of fracking have been overhyped to manipulate the public and policymakers. Frackers have been far more effective at creating illusions than jobs.” [84]

December 9, 2019

The **Consumer Energy Alliance** announced on its Facebook page that API had become an official member. One month after posting the news, the announcement had received one ‘like.’ [81]

September 9, 2019

API launched a series of ads on its YouTube channel touting emissions reductions by natural gas and oil companies. According to an API spokesman, the ads were produced to “provide balance to the energy debate as Congress returns and the presidential primary continues.” [79]

One of the videos, titled ,” declared that America’s natural gas and oil companies were “leading the world in cutting greenhouse gas emissions to their lowest levels in a generation.” [80]

The ads were also being run on television, radio, in airports, and on billboards in Washington D.C. and New York. API claimed to be spending more than $1 million dollars on the campaign. [79?

september 13, 2017

API CEO Jack Gerard told reporters that while he takes climate change “seriously,” further deregulation is still necessary, for the economy to “really grow and flourish,” *:{E&E:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: News*reported.[66]

“What we don’t support is unnecessary, redundant, costly regulations that provide no benefit to society, yet cost industry a lot,” Gerard said. “Our emissions of carbon are down to a 30-year low. That was brought to us primarily by cleaner-burning, fuel-efficient natural gas,” he said. “So when you put all that in context, I think we need to look at that holistically, but I think the deregulatory agenda needs to continue.”[ 66]

February 22 – 25, 2017

The American Petroleum Institute was anexhibitor at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (:{CPAC:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:), among a range of other conservative and pro-industry groups. [61]

February 5, 2017

API launched a new advertising campaign called Power Past Impossible to tout the uses of oil and natural gas. They released one of their ads during Super Bowl 51 (see video below).  According to *The Hill*, API estimated that the ad would have reached an estimated 110 million people. [60] vid]

aPI plans to run the ad for several years in different media. They also launched a website, Powerpastimpossible.org,as part of their campaign.

“Power Past Impossible is the next step in API’s long-running effort to create energy awareness,” API‘s president,Jack Gerard, told reporters. [60]

“The Power Past Impossible campaign features a few of the countless products and technological advances made possible from natural gas and oil, from life-saving medical devices to cosmetics to drug stores, from plastics in our toys to cell phones to 3D printers,” Gerard said. [60]

The Hill reported that Gerard said that while deregulation wasn’t the primary focus of the campaign, it tied in nicely.

“Those regulatory burdens, when they’re unnecessary or duplicative, add costs that make us less competitive,” he said.[60]

“We support appropriate regulation. We believe regulation has a role. What we need to do is fix it so it’s smart, commonsense regulation.” [60]

The API campaign also features a number of additional videos on a Power Past Impossible YouTube channel. [60]

June 8, 2016

API Director of Upstream and Industry Operations Erik Milito claimed that government reports have already proven hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to be safe. Milito points to an EPA report that, while it did conclude that fracking could potentially impact drinking water, had also said it did not find “evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.” [54]

“Hydraulic fracturing is being done safely under the strong environmental stewardship of state regulators and industry best practices,” Milito said. “Yet, since releasing the report, the EPA continues to face a barrage of politically based attacks attempting to tamper with scientific conclusions.” [54]

Notably, the :{EPA:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: report that Milito links toincludes a prominent notice which describes it as a “draft report,” of which peer review would begin in the first quarter of 2015. [55], [56]

“This assessment provides a review and synthesis of available information concerning the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking water resources in the United States. This is a draft report that has been made available for public comment and shared with the EPA Science Advisory Board for expert peer review.” [55]

June 2016

The American Petroleum Institute (API) was among organizations named in a Massachusetts subpoena looking for communications between ExxonMobil and organizations denying climate change, reports The Washington Times. [58]

Organizations named in the Massachusetts subpoena include the following: [58]

• The Centre for Industrial Progress
• The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
• The American Enterprise Institute
• Americans for Prosperity
• The American Legislative Exchange Council
• The American Petroleum Institute
• The **Beacon Hill Institute**at Suffolk University
• The George C. Marshall Institute
• The Heartland Institute
• Mercatus Center at George Mason University

This latest inquiry by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is one in a series of investigations into what ExxonMobil knew about climate change and when, started by a coalition of attorneys general in the US. [59]

May 23, 2016

The American Petroleum Institute released a statement celebrating the passage of the :{FY17:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: National Defense Authorization Act (:{NDAA:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:) in the U.S. House of Representatives which would revise Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export provisions. [57]

“U.S. LNG exports will create American jobs, significantly strengthen the global energy marketplace, and bolster our strategic alliances,” API Executive Vice President Louis Finkel said. “Today’s action by the U.S. House of Representatives to approve LNG exports provisions as part of the defense authorization bill further cements the critical role U.S. energy plays at home and abroad.

“It’s time for our nation to fully embrace the vast economic and geopolitical opportunities unleashed by the energy renaissance. U.S. LNG exports ensure that consumers across the globe have access to stable, diverse energy supplies, protect America’s role as a global energy leader, further enhance national security in the homeland and help our allies break dependence on nations that use their energy resources as a political weapon.” [57]

March 2016

A group of 21 kids and teenagers (including those as young as eight years old) are suing the :{US:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: government and the fossil fuel industry over climate inaction, appearing in an Oregon courtroom on March 9. [47], [48]

“It may sound like a long shot, but fossil fuel industry groups are taking the lawsuit seriously,”The Nation writes. [47]

In November, lobbyists representingExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, Koch Industries, and energy companiespetitioned the judge for permission to join the case alongside the government, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Fuel :{&:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Petrochemical Manufacturers, and the National Association of Manufacturers. The groups called the case “extraordinary,” and asked the court to dismiss the case.  [47], [48]

Among those suing the US government:

“Nathaniel, a teenager from Fairbanks whose asthma has worsened with the wildfires that now sweep across Alaska each summer; Alex, whose family farm in Oregon has been parched by record heat waves and drought; Journey, a member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe living in Hawaii, whose family fled from flooding in 2012; and Levi, an 8 year old who lives on a low-lying barrier island in Florida that is already grappling with sea level rise.” [47]

July 2015

The American Petroleum Institute has pushed to remove the crude oil export ban in the U.S. Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, said in a press conference “blocking trade in crude oil harms consumers when they fill up, it harms the economy, it inflates the trade deficit, it limits job creation, and it undermines America’s ability to protect our allies.”

The conference also featured EnCana Corporation President and CEO Doug Suttles, who they reported would be giving a “firsthand account of the North American Energy renaissance and why allowing crude exports is imperative to continuing our momentum.” [14]

The Congress Blog reports just a few risks of lifting the ban, including a huge increase in dangerous rail traffic: [15]

“[T]he hazardous increases in oil production that could come with the removal or weakening of the crude export ban presents much greater dangers that simply cannot be ignored. Everyday, dangerous fracking wells, sprawling rail lines carrying so-called ‘bomb trains’ and a network of leaking pipelines threaten our communities with spills and explosions with far-too-frequent regularity. If the highest estimates of increased oil production are realized, eliminating the crude oil export ban could lead to as much as a doubling of crude-by-rail traffic from today’s already perilous levels.”

May 2015

As of July, 2015, there had been six accidents involving oil trains where tank cars derailed and were punctured and oil was spilled since the beginning of the year. In the first five, there were also fires and explosions. [16]

All six oil train derailments involved new 1232 model train cars that the American Petroleum Institute is suing to keep on the tracks longer than existing timelines presented in the new oil-by-rail regulations.[17]

As reported in the New York Times, API has “long argued that forcing oil producers and shippers to use newer tank cars and replace older models would impose high costs on the industry and lead to a shortfall in tank car capacity.”

Their petition would challenge the government’s timeline to upgrade/retrofit older tank cars with newer safety features to prevent spills and derailments in the future. It also challenges a requirement that tank cars be equipped with new electronic braking systems or be faced with operational restrictions.

February 2015

The American Petroleum Institute released an updated “Primer” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:) on Hydraulic Fracturing, bearing the same title as their previous reports (“Hydraulic Fracturing: Unlocking America’s Natural Gas Resources”). According to the report, Fracturing is “largely responsible for changing America’s energy narrative from one of limited options to one of nearly limitless plenty.”

API makes the claim that “There are zero confirmed cases of groundwater contamination” due to hydraulic fracturing. They also divert blame of earthquakes caused by fracturing, citing studies that found it was “impossible to say with a high degree of certainty whether or not these earthquakes were triggered by natural means or by the nearby hydraulic-fracturing operation.” According to API, Fracturing is a “Safe, proven technology.”

Since the API‘s Report, the Environmental Protection Agency has released a long-awaited draft of its assessment of fracking’s impact on drinking water. The EPA fracking assessment found that fracking indeed contaminates drinking water: “From our assessment, we conclude there are above and below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources,” the EPA wrote. [18]

October 2013

API launched a campaign in South Portland with the goal of influencing a referendum to ban tar sandsin the area. The referendum was the result of local activists gathering almost 4,000 signatures in their city of about 25,000 to get the issue on the ballot.

API backed a professionally run public relations, voter outreach and get-out-the-vote effort to urge citizens to vote against the referendum. In mailings and open letters to the residents of South Portland, the campaign claimed that there were no plans to bring tar sands to South Portland.[19]

One stated (emphasis added):

“Some of you may be concerned about tar sands, which may have prompted you to sign a Waterfront Protection Ordinance petition. But the ordinance is not about tar sands.”

In addition to suggesting the referendum was unrelated to tar sands, they claimed the ordinance would shut down the port’s existing oil operations and cost local people their jobs.

According to a June, 2014 report by the Environment Maine Research and Policy Centre titled “Inside the Big Oil Playbook: (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:) the API spent over $750,000 to defeat the ballot measure (which was defeated by fewer than 200 votes). [20], [21]

December 16, 2011

Jack Gerard spoke at a press briefing teleconference on oil sandswhere he criticized President Obama’s decision to delay the Keystone XL project.

He claimed that Obama’s decision was “driven by politics” and that environmental studies had already found that there would be “no significant impacts’ on the environment” by the pipeline. [22]

July 19, 2010

The API released a “primer” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:) on hydraulic fracturing (fracking)that concludes (based on two studies) that there has been “no instance of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing,” and that there were “no significant environmental risks as a result of proper hydraulic fracturing.” [23]

DeSmogBlog investigated the environmental impacts of fracking and came to a different conclusion: It is becoming increasingly clear that the unconventional gas boom is happening too fast, too recklessly and with insufficient concern for the potential cumulative impacts on our most critical resources – clean air, safe drinking water and a stable climate.

API spent $1.9 million in the third quarter to lobby the federal government on hydraulic fracturing as well as other issues including offshore oil drilling, and clean water and air standards. [24]

April 2009

:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: sent a letter to members of Congress critical of the Obama administration:

“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.” [30]

April 20, 2009

API protested the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endangered public health and could be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Jack Gerard of API concluded that “The Clean Air Act was created to address local and regional air pollution, not the emission of carbon dioxide and other global greenhouse gases,” as reported in the *Oil :{&:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Gas Journal*. [31]

November 2008

In response to the November 2008 election of Barack Obama as President and Joe Biden as Vice-president, API released a statement in the name of their :{CEO:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, Jack Gerard, 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.” [32]

Gerard earlier 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. [33], [39]

January 31, 2003

API partially funded a controversial paper (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:) authored by climate change skepticsWillie Soon and Sallie Baliunas that comes to the conclusion that the climate hasn’t changed in the last 2000 years. [34]

The study, published in :{Energy :{&:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Environment:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, notes that many parts of the world showed medieval warming that exceeded the warming observed in the 20th century. [35]

March 21, 2002

The API produced a 16-minute video titled “Fuel-less: you can’t be cool without fuel,” which was distributed through the National Science Teachers Association. 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!” [62]

The video was also available on the API-owned website Classroom-Energy.org. The website describes its aim as to provide teachers and students with materials on “the vital role of oil and natural gas in modern life.” According to a WHOIS lookup, the domain for Classroom Energy was registered by the American Petroleum Institute on March 21, 2002. [36]

An API memo leaked to the media in 1998 explained API‘s plan to target 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.” [37]

Classroom-Energy.org now redirects to energytomorrow.org.

Early 1998

As reported by the New York Times, the American Petroleum Institute developed a communications plan to challenge climate change science. A small group met including representatives from Exxonmobil, Chevron, the Southern Company (a large US coal company), the American Petroleum Institute and others from a variety of conservative think tanks including the George C Marshall Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow — Many of which have received significant funding from the fossil fuel industry. [38]

The plan they drew up, leaked to Greenpeace (view documents here), proposed:

‘…a national media relations programme to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media on the scientific uncertainties and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policymakers.’ The plan would roll out up to and beyond the UNFCCC meeting (COP4) later that year in Buenos Aires.

According to the plan, “Victory will be achieved” when:

• “Average citizens understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties
• becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’
• Media ‘understands (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
• Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality.”

Part of the strategy was to co-ordinate “a complete scientific critique of the IPCC research and its conclusions” and to enable decision makers to raise “such serious questions about the Kyoto treaty’s scientific underpinnings that American policy makers not only will refuse to endorse it, they will seek to prevent progress towards implementation at the Buenos Aires meeting in November, or through other way.”

They would also recruit and train five “independent scientists,” described as “new faces… without a long history of visibility in the climate debate” who would participate in media outreach with the aim to “maximise the impact of scientific views consistent with ours, with Congress, the media and other key audiences” as well as specifically targeting students and teachers in order to “erect a barrier against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future.”

1956

API and the Oil Industry Information Committee sponsored a cartoon titled “Destination Earth”to promote the petroleum industry. According to the National Film Preservation Foundation, the film is a “Science-fiction-influenced cartoon sponsored by petroleum producers tolionize their industry and promote free enterprise.”[94

[vid]

in the cartoon, according to the Film Preservation Society description, ”’Colonel Cosmic,’ an astronaut from the totalitarian planet Mars, flies to Earth, where he discovers cheap oil and the market economy. Returning home, he leads a revolution and frees Martian entrepreneurs to begin oil exploration, start small businesses, and lead the planet out of economic stagnation.” The cartoon played at New York’s Paramount Theatre before being distributed more widely. [94]

American Petroleum Institute Contact & Location

The address and phone number for the American Petroleum Institute (:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:)was as follows as of May, 2016: [51]

API

1220 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005-4070

USA

Phone 202-682-8000

Related Organizations

:{Virginia Energy Citizens:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:600"):}:

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is a sponsor of Virginia Energy Citizens, a group describing itself as a grassroots coalition.

Virginia Energy Citizens’ state coordinatorMiles Morin attended the July 2015 meeting of the Northern Virginia Tea Party where he was originally billed as speaking on how “the radical environmental movement poses a serious threat to our freedoms, our property.” The online initiation was later revised to read how Morin would speak on how to tell “local, state and federal officials why you support pro-energy policies.” [13]

Craig Holman, the government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a Washington-based watchdog group, described API‘s relationship with Virginia Energy Citizens. He says lobbyists and paid consultants are now not only shaping public opinion with advertising, but also attended meetings and passing themselves off as grassroots activists (a “new” strategy):

“That’s clearly deceptive,” Holman said. “Not only are they trying to deceive the Tea Party activists, they’ll also be deceiving Congress at the same time.”  [13]

Classroom Energy!

Website run by API to inform teachers and students of the “vital role of oil and natural gas in modern life.”

API Members

The American Petroleum Institute’s members include major oil, gas, and coal companies. [46]

Between 2006 and 2017, API has reported over 1,100 unique member organizations. View the attached spreadsheet for a complete list of the American Petroleum Institute’s members year over year (.xlsx). [46]

Some notable examples below: [46]

Social Media

• @:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:energy on Twitter.
• “The American Petroleum Institute” on Facebook.
• “The American Petroleum Institute” on LinkedIn.

Resources

1. “:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Overview and Mission,” The American Petroleum Institute. Archived August 10, 2015.
2. “:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: History,” The American Petroleum Institute. Archived August 10, 2015.
3. Mark Dowie. “Greens Outgunned,” Earth Island Journal, Vol 10. No. 2 (Spring 1995). Archived January 13, 2004.
4. “American Petroleum Institute,” OpenSecrets.org. Accessed September, 2017.
5. “Denial and Deception: A Chronicle of ExxonMobil’s Efforts to Corrupt the Debate on Global Warming” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:) Greenpeace, May, 2007. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
6. “American Petroleum Institute,” Conservative Transparency. Data retrieved June 6, 2017.
7. “:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Leadership Team,” The American Petroleum Institute. Archived August 11, 2015.
8. “Vice President, Regulatory and Economic Policy,” American Petroleum Institute. Archived August 11, 2015.
9. “Executive Vice President, Government Affairs,” American Petroleum Institute. Archived August 11, 2015.
10. “Office of the President,” API. Archived, January 28, 1999.
11. “Executive Profile: Lee R. Raymond Ph.D.,” Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived August 11, 2015.
12. Andrew C. Revkin. “Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming,” New York Times, June 8, 2005. Archived September 15, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/SkHVT
13. Isaac Arnsdorf. “Small Tea Party Meeting Has a Special Guest: Big Oil,” Bloomberg Politics, August 10, 2015.
14. “Press Conference Call on Crude Oil Exports with Jack Gerard and Encana :{CEO:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Doug Suttles,” American Petroleum Institute. Archived August 11, 2015.
15. David Turnbull. “Lift the ban, cook the climate,” Congress Blog(TheHill.com), July 23, 2015. Archived August 11, 2015.
16. Justin Mikulka. “Most Recent Oil Train Accidents and Spills Involved ‘Safer’ :{CPC:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:-1232 Tank Cars,” DeSmogBlog, July 23, 2015.
17. Jad Mouawad. “Oil Industry Asks Court to Block Rail Transport Safety Rules,” May 12, 2015.
18. Sharon Kelly. “:{EPA:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Study: Fracking Puts Drinking Water Supplies at Risk of Contamination,” DeSmogBlog, June 4, 2015.
19. Justin Mikulka. “Maine Residents Fight American Petroleum Institute Lobbyists Over Ban on Tar Sands Shipments,” DeSmogBlog, July 21, 2014.
20. “Inside the Big Oil Playbook” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:), Environment Maine Research & Policy Center, June 2014. Archived August 11, 2015.
21. Ben Jervey. “South Portland Tar Sands Pipeline Defeat: Big Oil Outspends Local Grassroots 6-to-1,” DeSmogBlog, November 8, 2013.
22. Bill Bush. “Briefing stresses importance of Keystone :{XL:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: to national security” (Press Release), the American Petroleum Institute, December 16, 2011. Archived August 11, 2015.
23. “Hydraulic Fracturing: Unlocking America’s Natural Gas Resources” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:) American Petroleum Institute, July 19, 2011. Archived November 16, 2010.
24. “Petroleum group spent $1.9M on lobbying in 3Q,” AP, December 15, 2011. Reposted at Boston.com. Archived August 11, 2015.
25. Ian Talley, “Lobby Groups to Use Town Hall Tactics to Oppose Climate Bill,” Wall Street Journal “Washington Wire” blog, August 11, 2009.
26. David Stone. ”The Browning of Grassroots,” Newsweek, August 19, 2009. Archived January 12, 2012.
27. Alex Kaplun, “’Energy Citizens’ Take Aim at Climate Legislation,” The New York Times, August 12, 2009. Archived Aug 11, 2015.
28. “The Politics of Climate Change,” O’Dwyer’s Magazine, Feb. 2010. Archived August 11, 2015.
29. Ian Talley, “Lobby Groups to Use Town Hall Tactics to Oppose Climate Bill,” Washington Wire(Wall Street JournalBlog), August 11, 2009. Archived August 11, 2015.
30. Noah Brenner, “:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: slaps administration on policy,” Upstreamonline.com, April 6, 2009.
31. Nick Snow, “:{EPA:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: issues proposed endangerment finding on :{GHG:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:s,” Oil & Gas Journal, April 20, 2009. Archived August 11, 2015.
32. “:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:: Oil, gas industry will work with new administration,“ Oil & Gas Journal, November 5, 2008. Archived August 11, 2015.
33. Daniel Whitten. “Obama May Put Renewable-Energy Plan Ahead of Climate Package,”Bloomberg, November 5, 2008. Archived September 11, 2014. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/:{YF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:mCO
34. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.“Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:), Climate Research, Vol. 23 (January 21, 2003), P. 89-110. Archived August 11, 2015.
35. (CfA Press Release) “20th Century Climate Not So Hot,” Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, March 31, 2003. Archived August 11, 2015.
36. “About Us,” Classroom Energy!. Archived August 11, 2015.
37. Laurie David. “Science a la Joe Camel,” The Washington Post, November 26, 2006. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. WebCite URL:http://www.webcitation.org/6frz9xIZ5
38. “Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:), Greenpeace. Archived August 10, 2015.
39. Edward John Craig. “A New Day for Planet Gore,” National Review, November 5, 2008. Archived March 9, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6frnucqg0
40. ExxonSecrets Factsheet: American Petroleum Institute.
41. “National Wetlands Coalition,” SourceWatch profile. Accessed March 9, 2016.
42. “Climate Change,” American Petroleum Institute website. Archived July 25, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
43. “Climate Change and Energy” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:), American Petroleum Institute (November 2015 Report). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
44. “Climate Change,” American Petroleum Institute. Archived March 9, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6fswZkl4V
45. “:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Leadership Team,” American Petroleum Institute. Archived July 7, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
46. “:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Member Companies,” American Petroleum Institute.  Archived March 9, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6ftC1nakJ
47. Zoë Carpenter. ”21 Kids Are Suing President Obama Over Climate Inaction,” The Nation, March 9, 2016. Archived March 9, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6ftDfs2wv
48. “Big oil lines up to battle kids in climate court case,”Climate Home, January 15, 2016. Archived March 9, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6ftFVi0e0
49. Neela Banerjee. “Oil Industry Group’s Own Report Shows Early Knowledge of Climate Impacts,” InsideClimate News, February 5, 2016.Archived March 9, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6ftFznlLb
50. “Climate Models and :{CO2:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Warming, A Selective Review and Summary” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:), American Petroleum Institute. Retrieved from InsideClimateNews.org. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
51. “Contact,”American Petroleum Institute. Archived May 20, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6hezXo07M
52. Robert Grattan. “Oil and natural gas boosters to merge into energy lobbying behemoth,” November 18, 2015. Archived June 2, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
53. “America’s Natural Gas Alliance,” OpenSecrets. Accessed June 2, 2016.
54. Asha Glover. “:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:: Even :{EPA:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Said Fracking Is Safe,” Morning Consult, June 8, 2016. Archived June 22, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
55. “:{U.S. EPA.:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources (External Review Draft),” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-15/047, 2015. Archived June 22, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6iTCsqLy0
56. “Peer Review Plan (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:), EPA.gov. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
57. “American Petroleum Institute welcomes :{FY17:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: National Defense Authorization Act,” DailyEnergyInsider, May 23, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6iTDV6id6
58. Valerie Richardson. “Exxon fights Mass. :{AG:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:’s ‘political’ probe into climate change dissent,” The Washington Times, June 15, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6iVfnzUhc
59. Ben Jervey. “State Investigations Into What Exxon Knew Double, and Exxon Gets Defensive,” Desmog, April 1, 2016.
60. Timothy Cama. “Oil lobby targets consumers in new campaign,” The Hill, February 6, 2017. Archived February 18, 2017. Archive.is URL:https://archive.is/7qYYU
61. “:{CPAC:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: 2017 Sponsors,” cpac.conservative.org. Archived March 6, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/:{SKFRU:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:
62. “Fuel-less,” Clasroom Energ. Archived August 11, 2015. Achive.is URL: https://archive.is/Ac3YM
63. “Climate and Energy,” API, May 2017. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
64. “:{AMERICAN:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{PETROLEUM:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{INSTITUTE:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: (:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:)—:{STATE:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:–:{FOCUSED:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{EXAMPLE:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:), DDCpublicaffairs.com. Archived at DeSmog.
65. Steve Horn. “Here’s the :{PR:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Firm Behind ‘Your Energy America’ Front Group Pushing Atlantic Coast Pipeline,” DeSmog, June 14, 2017.
66. “Storms shouldn’t halt Trump deregulation efforts — :{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: chief,” E&E News, September 13, 2017. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
67. Steven Mufson. “Jack Gerard to step down as head of powerful American Petroleum Institute,” The Washington Post, January 17, 2018. Archived January 25, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/iaPDw
68. “ABOUT,” Explore Offshore. Accessed May 25, 2018.
69. “Archive of Ads With Political Content: American Petroleum Institute,” Facebook.Accessed May 25, 2018.
70. “Coalition,” Explore Offshore. Accessed May 25, 2018.
71. “Economic Impacts and Safety of Offshore Energy Lunch,” Eventbrite. Archived August 1, 2018. Archive.fo URL: https://archive.fo/azTZq
72. Valerie Volcovici. “Big Oil eyes :{U.S.:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: minority groups to build offshore drilling support,” Reuters, June 22, 2018. Archived Aug 1, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.fo/84gDE
73. “Steve Bannon tells black business leaders in South Carolina to demand better,” The Post and Courier, November 10, 2017. Archived August 1, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.fo/cT4A7
74. David Mark. “Webb’s rebel roots: An affinity for Confederacy,” Politico, June 10, 2008. Archived Aug 1, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.fo/:{BVWRL:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:
75. “:{PRIVACY:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{POLICY:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:,” Explore Offshore.Aug 1, 2018.
76. Sharon Kelly. “‘Time is Running Out,’ American Petroleum Institute Chief Said in 1965 Speech on Climate Change,” DeSmog, November 20, 2018.
77. “Early oil industry knowledge of :{CO2:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: and global warming,” Nature Climate Change(2018).
78. Jesse Prentice-Dunn. “Major lobbying groups join Koch-backed effort to allow more natural gas waste on public lands,” Medium, February 9, 2017. Archived August 7, 2019. Archive.fo URL: https://archive.fo/LlFKd
79. Josh Siegel, Abby Smith. “Daily on Energy: Trump’s vulnerability to oil attack on Saudi Arabia,” Washington Examiner, September 16, 2019. Archived September 17, 2019. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/:{3KU:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:pa
80. ,” YouTube video uploaded by user The American Petroleum Institute on September 9, 2019. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
81. “We’re pleased to announce our newest member, The American Petroleum Institute, we look forward to working with you! #MemberMonday,” Facebook post by Consumer Energy Alliance, December 9, 2019. Archived January 10, 2020. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/SsJhi
82. “:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{LAUNCHES:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{NEW:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{NATIONAL:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{CAMPAIGN:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: ‘:{ENERGY:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{FOR:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{PROGRESS:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:’, :{HIGHLIGHTS:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{U.S.:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{ENERGY:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{LEADERSHIP:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{IN:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{ANNUAL:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{STATE:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{OF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{AMERICAN:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{ENERGY:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{EVENT:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:” (Press Release), The American Petroleum Institute, January 7, 2020. Archived February 14, 2020.
83. “:{ENVIRONMENTAL:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{PROTECTION:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:,” Energy for Progress. Archived February 18, 2020. Archive.ph URL: https://archive.ph/:{KB:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:iGC
84. Louise Boyle. “Pro-fracking group is ‘wildly inflating’ job numbers, environmental campaigners claim,” Independent, March 20, 2020. Archived April 9, 2020. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/NnefO
85. “Phantom Jobs: Fracking Job Creation Numbers Don’t Add Up” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:), Food & Water Watch, March 20, 2020. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
86. “America’s Progress at Risk: An Economic Analysis of a Ban on Fracking and Federal Leasing for Natural Gas and Oil Development” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:), Ameican Petroleum Institute,2020. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
87. Dana Drugmand. “Minnesota Attorney General Sues Exxon, Koch and :{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: for Climate Deception,” DeSmog, June 24, 2020.
88. (Press Release). “:{AG:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Ellison sues ExxonMobil, Koch Industries :{&:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: American Petroleum Institute for deceiving, defrauding Minnesotans about climate change,” The Office of Minnesota Attorney,June 24, 2020. Archived June 25, 2020. Archive URL:https://archive.vn/VdRIK
89. “State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Keith Ellison Vs. American Petroleum Institute et al” (:{PDF:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:), State of Minnesota County of Ramsey, District Court Second Judicial District. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.”
90. Dana Drugmand. “:{DC:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Is the Latest to Sue Exxon and Big Oil for Climate Disinformation Campaigns,” DeSmog, June 25, 2020.
91. (Press Release). “:{AG:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Racine Sues Exxon Mobil, :{BP:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, Chevron, and Shell for Misleading Consumers About the Role Fossil Fuels Play in Climate Change,” Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, June 25, 2020. Archived June 25, 2020. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/5Quzv
92. Edward Klump. “:{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: dials back ‘energy’ branding,” E&E News, July 14, 2020. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
93. Megan Bloomgren. “New Logo Reflects :{API:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:’s Future Focus, Collaborative Path To Finding Solutions,“ American Petroleum Institute, July 13, 2020. Archived July 31, 2020. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/rcXTp
94. “Destination Earth (1956),” National Film Preservation Foundation.Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
95. “Restricting natural gas and oil development on federal lands and waters risks hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in government revenue for education and conservation programs,” tweet by @APIenergy, January 26, 2021. Archived.png on file at Desmog.
96. “:{FACT:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: :{SHEET:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:: President Biden Takes Executive Actions to Tackle the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, Create Jobs, and Restore Scientific Integrity Across Federal Government,” The White House, January 27, 2021. Archived February 11, 2021. Archive.vn URL: https://archive.vn/:{AX5K:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:h
97. “A Federal Leasing And Development Ban Threatens America’s Energy Security And Economic Growth, Undermines Environmental Progress,” American Petroleum Institute.Archived February 14, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/RuwlH
98. (Press Release). “API Outlines Path For Low-Carbon Future In New Climate Action Framework,” American Petroleum Institute, March 25, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/p23HY
99. (Press Release). “American Petroleum Institute’s newly announced ‘carbon price’ policy,” Influencemapvia Mailchimp. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/A47XC
100. Steven Mufson. “Top oil and gas lobbying group close to backing a carbon tax,” The Washington Post, March 2, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/cI1zA
101. Timothy Puko. “Oil Lobby Backs Climate Action Plan,” The Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/csTyK

Other Resources

• “American Petroleum Institute,” SourceWatch profile.
• American Petroleum Institute profile at Koch Vs Clean.
• American Petroleum Institute Profile at Polluterwatch.
• “American Petroleum Institute,” Wikipedia.
• “Exxon Still Funding Climate Change Deniers,” Greenpeace, May 18, 2007. Archived March 5, 2011.
• Kevin Grandia. “Oil Lobby’s ‘Energy Citizens’ Astroturf Campaign Exposed,”Huffington Post, August 13, 2009.
• Greenpeace research documentson the American Petroleum Institute.
• Clifford Krauss and Jad Mouawad. “Oil Industry Backs Protests of Emissions Bill,” The New York Times, August 18, 2009.  Archived August 11, 2015.
• Sheila McNulty. “The big oil backlash?“ Energy Source, August 20, 2009. Archived August 20, 2009