“To secure my vote on a climate bill, we have to develop a good policy. In my mind that good policy would include ANWR as part of a domestic production title.”
Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner, via email:
“Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is, has been, and always will be a non-starter. Drilling for more oil at one of the places most impacted by global warming is perhaps the furthest thing from a solution that I can imagine.”
Update — Adam Kolton, the National Wildlife Federation’s senior director for Congressional & federal affairs, weighs in with another strong statement:
“Just as there are bridges to nowhere, there is legislation to nowhere. Senator Murkowski’s demand that the price for her vote on a climate bill is drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a non-starter and she knows it. It was rejected when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House and it would obviously be rejected with the Democrats in charge. For someone like Senator Murkowski, who says she wants to pass a climate change bill, to make such a demand calls into question her sincerity and must be a huge disappointment to those in Alaska who believe the state is on the front lines of the climate crisis and that we urgently need to reduce
emissions. The National Wildlife Federation has always worked to block any legislation that would give Big Oil drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and we’ll continue to do so moving forward.”
Last night, Senator Murkowski was treated to a fundraiser by lobbyists for the Nuclear Energy Institute, Duke Energy and Peabody Coal. Political Party Time has the details:
Host Alex Flint lobbies for the Nuclear Energy Institute, whose PAC has given her $5,000 since 2008. Beverly K. Marshall lobbies for Duke Energy, which is based in North Carolina, and has given the senator $24,050 over the course of her career. David Russell represents a number of clients for Bryan Cave LLP, including Peabody Energy, a coal company based in St. Louis, Mo. Peabody’s PAC has given her $3,000 since 2008.
Here is a screenshot of the invitation, which was distributed by the NRSC:
Political Party Time also made some interesting general observations about Senator Murkowski’s fundraising habits:
Murkowski gets more campaign cash from the energy and natural resources sector than any other–more than $1 million over the course of her career. Seventy-three percent of her campaign cash comes from sources out of state.
Just 19 hours later, today at 2:00, Senator Murkowski will do the bidding of those who funneled money to her campaign last night. On a conference call with Chamber of Commerce members Senator Murkowski will give an overview of the EPA’s plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and her efforts to stop those plans. Here is how the Chamber of Commerce describes the call:
The U.S. Chamber is pleased to announce that we will hold a special member conference call with United States Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and we want you to be a part of this timely discussion about climate change and legislation in Congress to deal with EPA’s actions to regulate greenhouse gases on the afternoon of Thursday, February 25. Join in this worthwhile opportunity to hear an overview of the EPA’s move toward regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, its burdensome affects on business, and Congress’ response to the move. Register now to receive the dial-in number.
Senator Murkowski has introduced bipartisan legislation to allow time for Congress to address the climate change issue and prevent EPA from moving forward with a regulatory scheme to regulate greenhouse gases under the ill-suited framework of the Clean Air Act. On January 14, the first major step of that process–an EPA final rule concluding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare–took effect, and with it the obligation to move forward with what could easily become the most expensive and intrusive set of regulations in history. The implementation of these rules will have a significant impact on the economy and small businesses.
This is one of those all-too-often instances in Washington where a direct connection can be drawn between a candidate’s fundraising and their anti-progressive legislative agenda. Polluting corporations don’t funnel millions of dollars to candidates out of the goodness of their hearts. They do so with an expectation that they’ll get something in return, and Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski never disappoints on that front.
Indeed, Senator Murkowski’s extremely close ties to oil, gas and coal industry lobbyists have caused some to speculate that she is romantically involved with some of them:
When I moved from Alaska to Washington, I wasn’t sure if I’d be able to find someone who was right for me. The first couple of years were tough — I met a lot of potential matches but couldn’t find the perfect one. My dad had lived in DC for years and had a lot of success with PolluterHarmony, so I decided to try it.
When I saw Jeff’s profile, I couldn’t believe I found a lobbyist with so much money to contribute to my re-election campaigns and so many big coal and utility industry clients. Arch Coal, Southern Company, Edison Electric… I thought “He’s just what I’m looking for!” We instantly clicked — in our first phone conversation, he told me he could bundle $10,000 by our first date. We met in person a week later, and he had the check in hand.
In order to make sure Washington lobbyists know that Senator Murkowski’s votes and legislative efforts are up for sale to the highest bidder, PolluterWatch.com is now running ads on Politico:
And to be fair to Alaska residents who may also be interested to know about the unscrupulous behavior of their senior Senator, ads are also running on the websites of Alaska TV stations:
Visit NoDirtyAirAct.com for the latest on Senator Murkowski’s efforts to the bidding of her energy industry lobbying pals by severely weakening the Clean Air Act.
Well, the four steps that we suggest actually help us reach the Kyoto goals for the year 2030. Step 1 was double nuclear power production. Two is offshore exploration of natural gas. Three is make half our cars and trucks electric in 20 years. And finally doubling energy R&D spending to make solar costs competitive. By our computation, we’d actually get where we want to go.
You see, first we round up all of the world’s unicorns…
Oil and gas companies spent at least $154 million on lobbying last year, potentially besting a field of rivals battling to shape climate and energy policies and setting a new record for the industry. Influence efforts by the oil and gas sector grew at least 16 percent in 2009 from the $132 million spent in 2008, according to an early analysis of new lobbying disclosures by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The total reflects spending for the first nine months of 2009 plus 80 percent of reports filed for the past three months.
The electric utility industry, meanwhile, spent at least $134.7 million on lobbying last year. Combined, the two traditional energy sectors paid out nearly 10 times the $29 million that alternative energy companies allocated for lobbying efforts. Environmental organizations spent at least $21.3 million last year on lobbying.
Here are some additional resources on this.
This is what the oil and gas industry’s lobbying expenditures over the past 12 years looks like:
Of particular interest is the fact that the industry’s spending has nearly doubled in recent years, after remaining steady in the $50-$80 million range for the previous ten years. Pharmaceutical and health product lobbying on the other hand, while increasing steadily, has not experienced anything resembling the spikes we have seen in the oil and gas industry.
54% of the $154 million worth of lobbying was paid for by just five corporations: ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Marathon ($83 million).
ExxonMobil spent more on lobbying ($27,430,000) than all environmental organizations combined ($21,300,000), and nearly as much as the entire alternative energy industry ($29,000,000).
I’ve created a few charts that give some additional perspective on just how easily big oil outspends environmental organizations and alternative energy companies on lobbying.
This chart compares 2009 lobbying expenditures by five oil and gas companies to 2009 lobbying expenditures by environmental organizations and the entire alternative energy industry.
This chart compares 2009 lobbying expenditures by the oil and gas industry as a whole to 2009 lobbying expenditures by environmental organizations and the entire alternative energy industry.
During the CitizenTube State of the Union Q & A discussion, President Obama severely dodged a question submitted by young activists about his support of dirty energy.His answer is unwise, and deceitful. I hate to say this about the President that has done more to invest in a clean energy economy than anyone before him (not a hard accomplishment since W, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter were the only presidents in office since clean energy became an issue), but young people are tired of being lied to by the White House and congress.
He continues:
Despite the evidence and public support, President Obama’s comments disregarded the potential of renewable energy. Instead, he championed dangerous and dirty alternatives like Carbon Capture and Sequestration (for some incomprehensible President Obama keeps on calling it ‘clean coal’) and nuclear energy even though many studies question their ability to quickly and cheaply reduce our emissions. CCS is extremely inefficient, forcing us to dig up and burn much more coal per unit of energy produced (that certainly won’t help our friends in West Virginia fighting to protect their mountains). Nuclear energy consumes large amounts of fresh water, already a precious resource that will become even more rare as the climate warms up.Is President Obama’s support for these dirty forms of energy just a gimmick to schmooze voters?
It is becoming increasingly clear, to me at least, that President Obama truly embraces the Republican mantra of ‘all of the above’ as an energy policy. One problem: ‘all of the above’ is a catchphrase, not a plan for sustainably powering our economy for decades into the future. Acknowledging that there is legitimate role for coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas in our energy mix is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Even with the right policies and investments it will take decades to alter our energy mix to a somewhat-sustainable balance. But when President Obama uses his rhetorical gifts to sing the praises of dirty energy — and encourages increased oil/gas drilling and loan guarantees for constructing new nuclear power plants — he is moving our energy mix in the wrong direction and making the difficult transition to a low-carbon economy more lengthy and expensive.
You can watch the question and answer session here at the 31:38 mark:
Exxon Mobil reported a 23% drop in quarterly profit Monday as economic conditions remain challenging, but the energy giant’s earnings beat Wall Street’s expectations.
The world’s largest publicly traded oil company said it earned $6.05 billion in the last three months of 2009, down 23% from $7.82 billion a year earlier. On a per share basis, Exxon said it earned $1.27, a decline of 18% from the fourth quarter of last year.
…work in agricultural, manufacturing, research and development (R&D), administrative, and service activities that contribute(s) substantially to preserving or restoring environmental quality. Specifically, but not exclusively, this includes jobs that help to protect ecosystems and biodiversity; reduce energy, materials, and water consumption through high efficiency strategies; de-carbonize the economy; and minimize or altogether avoid generation of all forms of waste and pollution.
The Center for American Progress offers a similar definition (emphasis mine):
Green jobs are today’s jobs but repurposed and expanded to build a sustainable low-carbon economy. Most green jobs will be in occupations that people already work in today. Constructing wind farms creates jobs for sheet metal workers and industrial truck drivers. Energy efficiency retrofits for buildings employ roofers and insulators. And expanding mass transit systems employs electricians and dispatchers. Green jobs are not an entirely new job sector. Akin to more familiar blue collar jobs, this new class of employment refers to certain types of productive activities rather than a specific job classification.
What’s more, green jobs are inherently local and difficult to outsource. Green jobs involve transforming today’s homes, offices and factories and investing in new, low-carbon infrastructure. This work is impossible to push offshore because it must be preformed on site. Making buildings more energy efficient, constructing mass transit lines, installing solar panels and wind turbines, expanding public green space, and growing and refining advanced biofuels all must take place right here in America.
Note that both definitions include mention of ‘decarbonizing’ or creating a ‘low-carbon’ economy.
Jack Gerard, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, offered some advice for President Obama in advance of tomorrow’s State of the Union address:
We also hope the President takes the opportunity to recognize the potential of energy development to create more jobs. Not only jobs from producing more so-called green energy. But also jobs from producing more American oil and natural gas. The American oil and natural gas industry clearly has a role to play in putting Americans back to work. The U.S. oil and natural gas industry already supports more than 9 million American jobs and can create many more. The industry created more than two million additional American jobs in the years 2004 to 2007 alone. We are also a leading creator of green jobs.
The idea that the oil and gas industry is a leading creator of green jobs is absurd. Between this and Peabody energy now pushing green coal, polluting industries have outdone themselves in their efforts to rebrand the filthiest energy sources on the planet as clean and green.
“At this point I see no chance of [a Murkowksi amendment] becoming law,” Podesta said. “It’s being raised at this time as a political distraction. It’s time we got some bipartisan solutions going to get away from dependence on foreign oil.”
