Really? Seriously?

How Ironic: Murkowski Applauds New Climate Science Center

2010-03-05T10:30:00.005-05:00

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is talking out of both sides of her mouth about climate change.

According to a press statement released today, Murkowski was thrilled to welcome a new federally-funded Climate Science Center to her home state of Alaska. In her press statement, Murkowski emphasized the importance of climate research and its significance for Alaska:

"Alaska is ground zero for climate change and natural choice for a Climate Science Center..."

She added that she hoped the center would "add some much needed rigor to the field of climate science while expanding upon the already substantial advances in climate science made by the University system."

We're all pretty surprised to see quotes like these coming from the author of the "Dirty Air Act," a resolution that would overturn an EPA finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to the public. It's hard to imagine why Murkowski would support a Climate Science Center in her state when she is working so actively to halt action to solve climate change.

A Helluva Start: Lincoln Kicks Off Campaign Advertising by Attacking Climate Bill

2010-03-04T11:30:00.005-05:00

Nothing says you're ready for a tough Democratic primary like a campaign ad touting yourself as a solo party of no.

And that's just what a bragging Blanche Lincoln did with the first television ad for her re-election bid. In it she lays out her recipe for how she single-handedly has protected Arkansans from all sorts of Washington infighting, with climate legislation rounding out the list.

To be fair, she's been way too busy to help pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that would help create tens of thousands of new jobs for Arkansas and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Senator Lincoln recently co-sponsored Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s resolution, largely written by Washington energy lobbyists, designed to block the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to, you know, do its job and protect Arkansans from harmful carbon pollution that endangers public health and welfare.

And with Lt. Gov. Bill Halter's entrance into the Arkansas Senate Democratic primary this week, Lincoln can't afford to anger some of her most loyal campaign contributors: Big Oil and the electric utilities. She has taken more than $1 million in campaign cash from Big Oil and other energy interests in her career, a whopping $249,150 in the first two months of 2010 alone.

The ad's tagline for Senator Lincoln could not be more accurate: she IS one tough lady. She will do whatever it takes to protect Big Oil's profits, even at the expense of more jobs, less pollution and greater security for Arkansas families.

Watch the ad here:

Lisa "Dirty Air Act" Murkowski's Global Warming Solution: Drill In ANWR!

2010-03-04T10:35:00.008-05:00

Sen. Lisa Murkowski has been fighting extra hard for lobbyists and special interests lately.

First she allowed two lobbyists for big energy companies to essentially write the "Dirty Air Act" she introduced to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to regulate global warming pollution. Now, via The Hill, it appears that she's named her price for supporting a clean energy and climate bill: drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

You heard right: in order to secure her support for the bipartisan bill being drafted by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to cut global warming pollution, Murkowski would require that we drill for oil in a national wildlife refuge.

A quick rundown of why years of lobbying from Big Oil companies have failed to convince Congress to open ANWR to drilling, even during the GOP-controlled early 2000s:

• There’s so little oil in ANWR that drilling there would only reduce gas prices by a penny or two.
• That wouldn’t even happen until 2025 or 2030, because it takes that long to set up oil facilities all the way up there in the Arctic Circle.
• Drilling in the middle of a wildlife refuge is so unpopular, even the Republican Party’s standard-bearer John McCain opposed ANWR drilling in the 2008 election – the year of “Drill, baby, drill!”

The idea of drilling in ANWR has been effectively dead since Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006 and McCain opposed the idea during his 2008 run. To give an idea of how absurd Murkowski's attempt to revive this fossil of an idea is at this point, it would be like offering to support healthcare reform legislation in exchange for Congress officially recognizing bloodletting and exorcisms as accepted medical procedures.

Which begs the question: where does she get this stuff? Well, given that lobbyists essentially wrote the Dirty Air Act for her, they know where to turn for special interest handouts. Maybe they mentioned it during the recent fundraiser they held for Murkowski at the posh Caucus Room restaurant in downtown DC?

State Senator Robert Hurt Can See the Future?

2010-03-03T14:06:00.005-05:00

A tip on being a sell-out politician: when you erroneously shift blame for higher energy prices on national legislation, make sure the legislation has actually gone into effect.

Apparently, Virginia State Senator Robert Hurt didn't do his homework. When Appalachian Power (an important campaign donor for Hurt) implemented a 12.8-percent rate increase in December, the Senator attempted to blame the hike on a federal law that has still not passed through the Senate. The Danville Register Bee reports:

Sen. Robert Hurt, R-Chatham, said state and federal environmental regulations have played a role in rising energy rates. The federal “cap-and-trade” passed by the House of Representatives last year is an example of the “devastating policies” that affect people’s lives, forcing companies to raise rates to revamp their facilities to follow environmental rules.

The misinformation surrounding clean energy and climate legislation is reaching unprecedented heights as big polluters and their political allies strive to confuse the issues beyond recognition. The fact remains that the pending bill will help move our economy forward and clean up our energy sector; essential steps toward a clean energy future.

And Another One: Chamber of Commerce Loses Microsoft

2010-03-02T17:28:00.002-05:00

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been having some real trouble lately with the forward-thinking corporations it supposedly represents.

Back in October, the Chamber lost Apple as a member over its opposition to clean energy and climate legislation. At the time, Chamber President Tom Donohue criticized Apple – the company that brought you some of the most innovative personal electronics in the last two decades – of not being “forward-thinking enough” to join the Chamber’s “innovative” efforts to bring clean energy to the US economy. In a scolding letter to Steve Jobs (that steadfast opponent of innovation!), Donohue said:

It is unfortunate that your company didn’t take the time to understand the Chamber’s position on climate and forfeited the opportunity to advance a 21st century approach to climate change.

...

As the world’s largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, the Chamber is leading the way to support the innovation needed to transition to a lower carbon future, including the elimination of barriers to the deployment of clean energy technologies. Supporting innovation and technology is at the very heart of our efforts to combat climate change, and we will continue to fight for an approach that embraces their merits.

What, pray tell, does the Chamber's innovative approach to climate change entail? Among other things, a "Scopes monkey trial" of climate science. No, really.

So it should come as no surprise that another innovative and forward-thinking tech giant, Microsoft, is also not quite innovative enough to understand the Chamber’s grand strategy for America’s clean energy future. Politico's Ben Smith directs us to a statement on Microsoft's Web site:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has never spoken for nor done work on behalf of Microsoft regarding climate change legislation, and we have not participated in the Chamber’s climate initiatives. Microsoft has stated that climate change is a serious issue that demands immediate, worldwide attention and we are acting accordingly.

Microsoft: impeding innovators like Tom Donohue and the Chamber of Commerce since 1975!

Lincoln & Murkowski: In Big Oil's Pocket

2010-03-02T15:05:00.014-05:00

Why is Senator Blanche Lincoln co-sponsoring a measure to block the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions? It could have something to do with the nearly quarter-million dollars she received from oil and gas industries this year.

In response to accusations that Lincoln is acting in the interests of energy companies and other big polluting industries, her spokesperson told Greenwire: "Senator Lincoln is accountable to Arkansas voters alone."

But in Lincoln's case, the numbers speak for themselves. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Arkansas Senator tops the list of donation recipients from the Oil & Gas industry, bringing in a whopping $249,150 in the first two months of 2010 alone. This figure outstrips the next highest recipient - David Vitter (R-LA) - by almost $70,000.

Meanwhile, Dirty Air Act author Lisa Murkowski (R-Big Oil) is huddling again with dirty energy lobbyists to raise money for her re-election campaign. The Alaskan Senator ranks third in contributions from oil & gas, bringing in $173,876 so far this year. Murkowski also tops the list for contributions from electric utilities.

Plenty of industries are willing to pay a high price for a license to pollute, and they seem to have found some reliable allies in their campaign to defeat key environmental initiatives proposed by the EPA.

Dirty Coal Lobby ACCCE Loses Another Member

2010-03-01T15:06:00.004-05:00

R?S? has reported in depth on the ongoing loss of members by the beleagured coal lobbying group ACCCE, which opposes efforts to cap carbon pollution and enact comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. Now, according to Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones, it looks as though the group has lost yet another member:

Progress Energy, a North Carolina-based utility, decided late last year to not renew its membership in the multi-million dollar group that promotes so-called "clean coal," a spokesman confirmed. The departure was not made public, but the group recently disappeared from the list of ACCCE members.

For anyone who's just tuning in to the ACCCE soap opera, Sheppard provides a bit of background on what might have made the lobby group less and less appealing to Progress:

2009 was not a great PR year for ACCCE. It came to light that the group had paid a shady subcontractor to send forged letters to members of Congress lobbying against the cap and trade bill. Then, one of the organization's vice presidents may have lied under oath about the group's position on climate legislation. The group was also busted for misrepresenting a veterans group in an email. ACCCE came in at No. 3 on our Dirty Dozen of climate change denial in December, winning third place for its efforts to curry support for the as-yet non-existent technology of "clean coal" while their VP of communications refuses to say whether coal contributes to global warming.

There were several high-profile departures from ACCCE last fall over its discordant climate policy. Electric utility giant Duke Energy and Alstom, a French company that makes components for power plants, left in September.

ACCCE is not alone among dirty energy lobby groups in shedding members over opposition to clean energy and climate legislation: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has lost corporate mainstays like Nike and Johnson & Johnson, and the National Association of Manufacturers saw Duke Energy quit as well.

South Dakota: Climate Change is "Cosmological"

2010-03-01T10:46:00.015-05:00

The South Dakota Legislature recently chose to mandate the way climate change is taught in schools: that is, to teach it wrong.

A draft of the Concurrent Resolution which passed last month, with its poetic references to carbon dioxide and utter fabrication of scientific data, reads more like a fairy tale than policy. Some highlights include:

WHEREAS, historical climatological data shows without question the earth has gone through trends where the climate was much warmer than in our present age. The Climatic Optimum and Little Climatic Optimum are two examples. During the Little Climatic Optimum, Erik the Red settled Greenland where they farmed and raised dairy cattle....

WHEREAS, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life on earth. Many scientists refer to carbon dioxide as "the gas of life"

BE IT RESOLVED That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative

Thankfully most of these sections were cut from the final draft of the bill, but it's very unsettling that they were there in the first place. Also disturbing is are the parallels with the Scopes Monkey Trial - which a number of special interests are trying to recreate with climate change.

When the U.S. Chamber of Commerce put climate science on trial, the EPA dismissed the endeavor as a "waste of time" and said that a threatened lawsuit by the Chamber would be "frivolous." The LA Times reported:

Environmentalists say the chamber's strategy is an attempt to sow political discord by challenging settled science -- and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end.

And yet, a similar battle may now have to be waged in South Dakota. Didn't we learn our lesson about reckless science-denying politicians meddling in the teaching of sound science?

Lisa Loves Lobbyists! "Dirty Air Act" Protesters Shame Murkowski At Fundraiser With Energy Lobbyists

2010-02-25T13:51:00.005-05:00

Sen. Lisa "Dirty Air Act" Murkowski (R-Big Oil) is a big-time fave of lobbyists for dirty energy.

Coming on the heels of Murkowski's efforts to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to regulate carbon pollution, lobbyists for some of America's biggest energy companies and polluters threw the Alaska Senator a closed-door fundraiser at the exceedingly posh Caucus Room restaurant in Washington, D.C. Who was she meeting? Per EnviroKnow:

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.

Fortunately, grassroots protesters -- comprised of young people who'd like to inherit a livable planet and a sound economy -- were there to greet the Senator on her way into the lobbyists' fundraiser.

See Sen. "Dirty Air Act" walk right by the protestors without a word. Cold!

What were the protestors so upset about? Well, aside from stripping the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to, you know, protect the environment, Murkowski's "Dirty Air Act" would actually undermine the U.S. economy by crippling the auto industry as it transitions to building more energy-efficient cars to compete in the global market.

Lisa Murkowski and dirty energy lobbyists: BFF4L!

Follow our friends at Consequence09 for more updates.

After His "Strong Support" Of Carbon Cap, Newt Gingrich Flops All Over The Place

2010-02-19T14:11:00.012-05:00

Amidst the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Newt Gingrich is heaping praise on a new special interest-friendly political agenda - the Contract from America. In a recent op-ed, Gingrich endorsed the contract as "genuine voice of the American people," and encouraged supporters to vote for their top ten solutions to bring "real economic, conservative and government reform."

What Newt failed to mention is that one of the proposal's 22 points is directly contradictory to his previous stance on cap-and-trade. The document states:

REJECT CAP & TRADE: Prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.

But in a 2007 interview with PBS, Newt clearly supported a cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon emissions:

Either Gingrich didn't bother to read the "Contract from America" all the way to the end (it is a hefty 22-point document), or he has completely flip-flopped on his position in just a few years. The later appears to be true, based on comments by Newt over the past year. Media Matters put together a very telling chart on the Gingrich of 2007 vs. 2009:

GINGRICH THEN:If Bush Had Instituted A Cap-And-Trade Policy "We Would Be Much Better Off." During a 2007 interview with PBS, Newt Gingrich said: "If [President Bush] had instituted a regime that combined three things I just said -- mandatory caps, a trading system inside the caps, as we have with clean air, and a tax incentive to be able to invest in the new technology and to be able to produce the new technology -- I think we would be much better off than we are in the current situation." [PBS, 2/15/07]
GINGRICH NOW: Cap-And-Trade Is "Fundamentally Wrong." During his testimony in front of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, former Speaker Newt Gingrich said: "Imposing stunningly high taxes on an economy in the middle of a recession is fundamentally wrong, and guarantees that our economic competitors in the global marking will be in a dramatically better economic position. They recognize that artificially capping their economy is the wrong approach for developing their societies." [Gingrich Testimony, 4/24/09]

Why the sudden change of heart? It could have something to do with the $950,000 that coal and fossil fueled power companies contributed to Gingrich’s political advocacy group, American Solutions for Winning the Future, in the first half of last year. Among the top contributors were Peabody Energy - a St. Louis-based coal giant - and American Electric Power, the largest or second-largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. power industry.

So no matter how many economists and scientists come out in favor of a cap-and-trade scheme for limiting U.S. carbon emissions, you can count on Newt to keep on fighting for the interests of the country's biggest polluters.

Rick "Secession" Perry Picks Fight With EPA Over Emissions

2010-02-16T14:48:00.007-05:00

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is in a strange situation, even for politics in the Lone Star state.

Facing a nasty primary challenge from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Perry thought he had locked up support from the crazy crowd after brazenly suggesting that his state could secede from the Union in response to President Obama's policies. Yet with early voting beginning today, Perry has suddenly found himself out-crazied by Tea Party activist Debra Medina.

In addition to appearing to endorse two of the Tea Partiers' favorite conspiracy theories - that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen, and that 9/11 was an inside job - Medina has also gained considerable traction in far-right circles by railing against the Environmental Protection Agency's CO2 "endangerment finding." The finding - that runaway carbon dioxide emissions threaten human health by fueling global warming and its damaging effects - gives the EPA the power to regulate and limit carbon pollution. Most important, however, is the fact that the EPA's finding has sparked renewed debate and energy in Congress around the idea of pricing carbon emissions, thus harnessing the power of the free market to boost clean energy production and reduce pollution.

Mountains of evidence show that limiting carbon emissions can be a good thing for entrepreneurship, helping to create 1.7 million new jobs and generating billions in clean energy investment. Yet Medina has been railing that the EPA ruling threatens the Texas economy, and Perry is scrambling to out-crazy her: today, the Governor's office announced that the state of Texas will be suing the federal government in an attempt to overturn the finding:

The EPA’s misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ. This legal action is being taken to protect the Texas economy and the jobs that go with it, as well as defend Texas’ freedom to continue our successful environmental strategies free from federal overreach.”

Worse (or better, if you're a Rick Perry advisor), Perry uses the announcement as an opportunity to endorse a grab bag of phony conspiracy theories surrounding climate science:

The state’s legal action indicates EPA’s Endangerment Finding is legally unsupported because the agency outsourced its scientific assessment to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been discredited by evidence of key scientists’ lack of objectivity, coordinated efforts to hide flaws in their research, attempts to keep contravening evidence out of IPCC reports and violation of freedom of information laws.

Translation: Debra Medina may think the U.S. government brought down the World Trade Center, but I'm convinced that 1,700 Ph.D.'s are involved in an elaborate plot to trick the world's major economies into doing something that's in everyone's best interest!

So now that Perry's a card-carrying member of the Climate "Truther" Squad, we're wondering if R?S? fave Sen. James Inhofe is considering putting in an appearance on his behalf. We sure hope so: if nothing else, it'll make great political theater!

Big Shock: Exxon's Still Funding Climate Deniers While Denying They're Doing It

2010-02-12T11:48:00.007-05:00

Last year, ExxonMobil told the New York Times (via MotherJones) that the company was cutting off the spigot of funding it has long provided to several think tanks that deny the science surrounding global climate change:

Alan T. Jeffers, a spokesman for ExxonMobil, said by e-mail that the company had ended support “to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."

Turns out that was a bit of a red herring: the UK Independent reports that Exxon has continued funding the deniers to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece following its promise to stop doing it:

The attack against scientists supportive of the idea of man-made climate change has grown in ferocity since the leak of thousands of documents on the subject from the University of East Anglia (UEA) on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit last December.

Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totaling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organizations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.

Mother Jones offers a bit more on where Exxon's money is going:

Josh Harkinson reported on Atlas's role in the international climate change denier web in December, and Exxon topped our list of climate deniers in December. In fact, they've been the top source of climate-change-denier funding for some time, as Chris Mooney reported for Mother Jones in 2005. Exxon gave Atlas $100,000 in 2008, according to the oil company's reports, and Atlas has in turn supported at least 30 other foreign think-tanks that spread climate change misinformation. A number of these groups have been at the forefront of efforts to flog the so-called ClimateGate issue, and are now leading assaults on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

So remember: the next time you gas up at an ExxonMobil, you're pumping dollars into the fight against sound climate science.

"Smokey Joe" Rakes in Natural Gas $$ While Blocking Clean Energy Reform

2010-02-03T17:19:00.007-05:00

Talk about a conflict of interest.

Rep. "Smokey Joe" Barton (R-TX) has been raking in money from a stake he holds in a series of natural gas wells he purchased from a campaign donor.

The Dallas Morning News says it all:

Rep. Joe Barton has earned nearly $100,000 from an interest in natural gas wells that he purchased from a longtime campaign donor who also advised the congressman on energy policy, according to interviews and records.

At a hearing last month of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Barton said he was "a small, small partner in a natural gas well in Johnson County in the Barnett Shale that is probably my 4-year-old son's college education." He later told a reporter that he couldn't remember precisely how he obtained the interest.

Land records show that Barton, R-Arlington, purchased his interest from Walter G. Mize, a Cleburne businessman who donated more than $30,000 to Barton's campaigns.

At least one expert on Congress called Barton's position "unethical":

"If you are elected as a public servant to try to do what is right for the public generally and then you use that position to help bring in material wealth, I think it's unethical," said James Thurber, a distinguished professor of government at American University.

We'd also call Joe Barton's numerous distortions of climate change science -- including saying that global warming would be a "net benefit" to the economy -- unethical, but that's for another day.

Phony "Climategate" Scandal: Who's Distorting NOW?

2010-02-03T15:46:00.006-05:00

Even in our line of work here at R?S? -- exposing the well-funded truth distorters behind attacks on clean energy -- we are sometimes dumbfounded at how willing Big Oil's friends in the media are to completely ignore reality and write their own storylines.

Take today's op-ed from Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner: on the same day that the Pennsylvania State University essentially cleared climatologist Dr. Michael Mann of distorting research following the phony "climategate" scandal, Barone penned an op-ed heaping abuse on climate scientists for... distorting science in the phony "climategate" scandal.

No, really. You have to see a smear this stupid to believe it:

Quick, name the most distrusted occupations. Trial lawyers? Pretty scuzzy, as witness the disgraced John Edwards, kept from the vice presidency in 2004 by the electoral votes of Ohio. Used car dealers? Always near the bottom of the list, as witness the universal understanding of the word "clunker."

But over the last three months a new profession has moved smartly up the list and threatens to overtake all. Climate scientist.

First came the Climategate e-mails made public in November that showed how top-level climate scientists distorted research, plotted to destroy data and conspired to prevent publication of dissenting views.

Did you hear that? They plotted! They destroyed! They CONSPIRED! Those dastardly distorters dare to delude us with declarations of the coming destruction of our planet! We must deluge them with derision and disrupt their disinforming ways!!

Nevermind that Mann didn't distort anything: it's too good a story to let the facts stand in the way.

In case you're wondering who's really behind an attack as transparently absurd as this, Barone's piece is being pushed out today by the American Enterprise Institute, which was caught up in a scandal of its own when the UK's Guardian newspaper discovered that the group -- which has taken more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil -- was offering cash to scientists if they'd stand up and criticize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's landmark 2007 report:

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

Now, unlike the manufactured "climategate" scandal, that's what actually getting caught red-handed looks like.

Sidebar: While we normally assume that no one takes the Examiner too seriously (for non-DC types, it's a free paper distributed primarily to Metro riders and foaming-at-the-mouth partisans), Michael Barone is really hitting a new low here. When he's not slumming around with the Examiner and AEI, Barone is a senior writer for US News & World Report and co-author of the excellent Almanac of American Politics.

Needless to say, we're disappointed how far he's fallen.

The McSupremes: Our Favorite Post-Citizens United Photoshop Job

2010-02-02T09:33:00.007-05:00

As R?S? regulars are well aware, we didn't think much of the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision to open the floodgates to unfettered corporate spending in elections. Neither did LCV's President, Gene Karpinski.

In fact, a wide range of respected individuals and media outlets roundly criticized the decision. Even retired moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor took a swipe at the ruling.

But a picture says a thousand words, and in this case, it's funny enough that we had to share it with you:

We have no idea where it came from (it arrived in this R?S? blogger's inbox via chain email), but our mystery author sure knew who was likely to benefit from the ability to dump millions on federal elections: logos for ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell Oil are all prominently displayed on the robes of the pro-corporate majority.

Working From Some Wacky Facts, Palin Misleads On Future Of Oil

2010-01-25T10:28:00.006-05:00

Drawing upon her extensive knowledge of the world's political and economic history, former Alaska Gov. and VP candidate Sarah Palin (R-Facebook) is now promoting oil as the energy source of the future.

Citing "this informative article" from the nakedly partisan Investors' Business Daily, Palin suggests in her new Facebook post that oil will still account for 40 percent of the world's energy supplies by 2035.

We're not sure where Palin and IBD are getting their information, but numerous independent analysts believe that number will already be down to 33 percent by 2030. Among the reasons why:

+The rising cost of oil exploration and refining as we dry up the oil that's easy to get and must move on to deeper and more remote locations.

+The fact that many of the remaining reserves are in unstable (read: dangerous) regions of the world.

+The falling cost of clean, alternative energy sources like wind and solar power.

In other words, if you listen to Sarah Palin and start putting your chips on oil, you'll be betting against the market. Just as the people who've worked with her wouldn't suggest taking her political advice, we suggest you steer clear of her economic ravings and rantings as well.

It's also worth pointing out how overwhelmingly voters rejected Palin's Big Oil policies at the ballots: the Obama-Biden pro-clean energy team's margin of victory over the "Drill, baby, drill" team of McCain-Palin was nearly 10 million votes - the largest since 1984. And today, after more than a year of well-funded attacks on clean energy reform from the energy special interests and their allies in Washington, public support for a clean energy and climate bill remains high in battleground states.

For more on Palin's factless new smear, check out Media Matters.

$676,500 From Exxon And All I Got Was This Shoddy Denier Video

2010-01-22T17:18:00.006-05:00

A Big Oil-funded think tank called the Heartland Institute is pushing out this Youtube video claiming that because it's been snowing recently, global warming can't possibly be real. They even show you some real cool photos of cacti covered by an inch or two of the white powdery stuff!

Aside from looking like it was thrown together by some guy named Chad in his freshman dorm, the video is riddled with wild and disproven claims about temperature data over the past decade. Worse, it sort of steers clear of what science snobs might call "peer-reviewed research" in favor of that old denier favorite: looking out the window in winter.

As we've mentioned here on R?S? before, saying global warming is a hoax because it's snowing outside is a bit like saying "Well, I haven't been mugged recently, so crime must not really be a problem!" Since the Heartland Institute is located in Washington, D.C., we have to wonder what these people will be saying when it tops 100 in the nation's capitol this coming summer. It gets HOT.

You'd think with the heavy funding they get from Exxon and other energy companies with a vested interest in blocking any and all clean energy reform, the Heartland Institute could have at least thrown together a slick animation or, I dunno, gotten Glenn Beck to cry on camera.

Oh wait, we can get that for free. Score!

Supreme Court Learnings For Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Big Oil

2010-01-21T11:33:00.006-05:00

It's Round 2 of "Big Money Day" here at R?S?.

Today, the Supreme Court issued a shocking decision that LCV's Gene Karpinski says will "open the floodgates" to corporate money in elections. In short, the court struck down decades-old campaign finance laws that bar corporations from spending unlimited sums directly advocating for or against candidates for elected office.

Across the board, smart observers of American politics know exactly what that means: unlimited sums of money from massive corporations like ExxonMobil spent attacking candidates who will stand up for things that corporations don't like. Just picture 60 seconds of campaign-style smear against your favorite clean energy candidate, with the closing line: "This ad paid for by ExxonMobil."

From a Washington Post analysis of the decision:

It's hard to overestimate the impact that the Supreme Court's reversal of a two-decade-old ban on corporate independent expenditures in campaigns will have on the political landscape in 2010 and beyond...

"This is a sweeping decision, period," said Marc Elias, a Democratic election lawyer. "In one opinion the Court struck down all limits on independent expenditures directly from corporations."

Jason Torchinsky, a Republican election lawyer, predicted that the Court's ruling will "unleash millions of dollars in independent expenditures from corporations, non-profits and unions in federal and state races"...

The sad bottom line came from Justice John Paul Stevens, who attacked the court's majority decision aloud in court today:

Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Having felt the full brunt of Big Oil's decades-long effort to undermine the legislative process, those of us here at LCV will be redoubling our efforts to defend clean energy champions from what we anticipate will be its efforts to do the same thing to our elections.

What Would You Do With $123 Million?

2010-01-21T09:57:00.007-05:00

That's the question we've been asking ourselves this morning here at R?S? amid reports that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent a record $71.19 million on lobbying just in the last three months of 2009. That's more than double its third quarter lobbying expenses of nearly $35 million, and brings the Chamber's 2009 total to a whopping $123 million.

And what has the Chamber been doing with all that cold, hard cash? Why, lobbying to kill clean energy and climate legislation of course!

To put the Chamber's massive total in perspective, let's look at what else the Chamber could have done with its $123 million:

• Financed multi-millionaire (and clean energy hater) Mitt Romney’s entire 2008 presidential campaign
• Completely built, shot, edited and produced any one of Peter Jackson’s three epic “Lord of the Rings” films
• Purchased six F-16 “Fighting Falcon” fighter jets or 20 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks
• Or, you know, more than doubled the Obama administration’s recent announcement of a hefty $100 million in new Recovery Act grants for clean energy and energy efficiency

But knowing the Chamber as well as we do, if they didn’t spend it on lobbying, they’d probably go with the tanks… all the better to quash clean energy reform!

The Chamber's Latest: Sometimes, There Just Aren't Words

2010-01-20T12:38:00.007-05:00

As far as special interest groups go, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce might just be the #1 Clean Energy and Climate Villain.

Between calling for a "Scopes monkey trial" of global warming science and engaging in a decades-long campaign to defeat legislation that would wean us off foreign oil, the Chamber has done almost everything in its power to stand in the way of clean energy reform. They even spent over a half-million dollars to defeat Martha Coakley in this week's Massachusetts special election for US Senate, boosting a candidate who denies the existence of human-caused global warming and who promised to vote against the clean energy and climate bill now before the Senate.

So we were a bit surprised (to put it mildly) when we saw this sidebar ad from the Chamber of Commerce's multi-million dollar publicity stunt, the "American Free Enterprise" campaign. We took a screenshot of it so its, um, beauty could be preserved forever. It reads:

"American Free Enterprise: Leading the world in clean energy tech will help Free Enterprise create the 20 million new jobs we need. Join the discussion now!"

We chose not to "Become a Fan." No, we don't hate clean energy technology, but we do recognize greenwashing -- especially when it's shoved in our faces.

See, Facebook allows you to target your sidebar ads to users with an interest in particular issues. In this case, we're guessing that the Chamber's greenwashing ad showed up on LCV's page because Facebook has figured out that we're BFFs with clean energy. What that means is that the Chamber is likely specifically targeting Facebook users with an interest in clean energy and climate policy for its greenwashing campaign. Of course the ads don't actually link to any sort of document explaining the Chamber's many proposals for creating clean energy jobs (we would find a blank page especially appropriate for that). They merely take you to the campaign's fan page.

We'll end this post with a quick thought: if McDonald's started targeting vegetarians with an ad campaign promising that the Golden Arches are the future of fresh organic produce, how many do you think they'd convince?

Saudi Arabian Oil Exporters: "Americans Totally Heart Our Oil!"

2010-01-14T13:50:00.008-05:00

Here at R?S?, we've talked extensively about the connections between so-called "grassroots" rallies against clean energy and climate legislation, and how they're really funded by Big Oil companies that stand to continue reaping record profits while American energy independence suffers.

But the picture gets even scarier when you follow the money a little further, as ThinkProgress recently did. In a major exposé on three Astroturf groups attacking clean energy legislation - Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks and Energy Citizens - ThinkProgress shows that many of the major individuals and companies tied to these well-funded efforts are in turn funded by countries that export oil.

We'll repost a few of the most damning paragraphs here, but we suggest you head over to ThinkProgress and read the entire report for yourself:

– The lobbyist-run front group Americans for Prosperity is perhaps the most active anti-clean energy group in the country. In addition to working furiously to orchestrate anti-clean energy themed tea parties, Americans for Prosperity is running anti-clean energy legislation ads, anti-climate change science ads, and is even barnstorming around the country with anti-clean energy “hot air” rallies. The organization was founded and is bankrolled by David Koch of Koch Industries, a major refiner of oil. Through Koch Industry subsidiaries — Koch Supply & Trading and Flint Hills Resources — Koch imports crude oil and unfinished oils from a variety of foreign sources, including from Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.

– Currently, FreedomWorks is focusing their energy activism on supporting the status quo reliance on fossil fuels. Throughout 2009, as FreedomWorks leader Dick Armey organized tea party opposition to clean energy reform, he simultaneously worked for the lobbying firm DLA Piper on the account of Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. According to disclosure forms filed with the Justice Department, the UAE paid Armey’s lobbying firm at the time to help maintain the “development of UAE energy resources, which represent about 10 percent of global oil reserves.”

– Oil companies have attempted to demonstrate popular support for fossil-fuel dependence by hosting “Energy Citizen” rallies around the country, where employees of oil companies are bused in for large events. The “Energy Citizen” website claims that converting a clean energy economy would mean “less energy independence.” Ironically, the main sponsor of the Energy Citizen effort is the American Petroleum Institute, which is a trade association for companies like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Sunoco. These companies, in turn, are highly dependent on foreign oil imports — from countries including Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Venezuela. For perspective, Exxon Mobil imports 27%, Valero 29%, and Chevron 36% of its oil from Persian Gulf countries alone.

Now might also be a great time to remind everyone that America's dependence on oil poses a major national security threat.

The fact is we spend $1 billion a day on foreign oil. With our dependence on oil from hostile nations hurting our economy, helping our enemies and putting our security at risk, it's particularly stomach-turning to see how connected these countries are to so-called "grassroots" efforts to keep us hooked on their oil.

Inhofe on Rolling Stone's "Climate Killers" Article: "I Should Have Been No. 1"

2010-01-13T10:21:00.007-05:00

Talk about a man who takes pride in his work.

Rolling Stone recently profiled 17 prominent individuals whom it calls the "Climate Killers" -- people who are working hard to stop any and all meaningful clean energy and climate reform. Big surprise: Oklahoma Sen. and Climate Denierism Grand Poobah James Inhofe makes the list, under the heading "God's Denier." Check it out:

As the former chairman and ranking Republican of the Senate environment committee, Inhofe is one of the GOP's loudest and most influential voices on climate change. The senator from Oklahoma calls global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," insists that carbon dioxide is not "a real pollutant," and doesn't worry about rising sea levels, because, if all else fails, "God's still up there."

Far from being marginalized, Inhofe continues to hold remarkable sway: In November, he organized fellow GOP members to boycott the environment committee's debate on climate legislation. He also marshaled the ranking GOP members of all six committees with jurisdiction over climate change to write Sen. Barbara Boxer, warning her that proceeding without Republicans would "severely damage" prospects for the bill's passage. The move helped cloud the bill's future, diminishing America's bargaining position at the Copenhagen climate negotiations. "We won, you lost," Inhofe gloated to Boxer during a committee hearing. "Get a life."

It would appear that Inhofe is now taking serious issue with Rolling Stone over the article... but not in the way you might think. In an eloquent statement on his Environment and Public Works Committee page, Inhofe writes:

"My first response was I should have been No. 1, not No. 7," said Inhofe, perhaps the most vocal global-warming skeptic in Congress. "I am serious about that. I have spent now literally years on this thing, and it has been a long, involved thing.''

So when it comes to things and stuff about global warming denierism, don't you ever forget it: James Inhofe is your #1 guy.

Climate Denier's Coal Company Violated Clean Water Act 12,000 Times (No Exaggeration)

2010-01-11T16:11:00.016-05:00

From our friends at the Sierra Club today comes something pretty shocking:

In a mere two years since it was fined more than $20 million for major violations of the Clean Water Act, coal giant Massey Energy - the company run by notorious global warming science denier Don Blankenship - appears to have violated the Act another 12,000 times, according to the Sierra Club. Per the AP news report:

Several environmental groups are threatening to sue coal producer Massey Energy Co. for what they claim are more than 12,000 violations of pollution laws.

The Sierra Club and several West Virginia groups said Monday they've given Massey a notice that gives the company 60 days to reach a settlement or face a lawsuit.

The groups claim Massey has continued with the same pattern of violations covered by a $20 million settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency two years ago.

The company's response? In a well honed strategy displayed just last week when scientists issued a report on the human health risks of mountaintop mining, Massey issued a combative, campaign-style statement attacking the groups and questioning their motives:

"On first review, the data and conclusions in the notice appear to be significantly incorrect," Massey said, adding that the company's rate of compliance with environmental laws is above 99 percent. "The threatened suit is but another attempt by out-of-state extremists to attack the coal industry."

It would appear, however, that the pesky 1 percent of the time the company was not in compliance with environmental laws was more than enough to leave a wide trail of destruction in its wake. In addition to the $20 million EPA fine, a quick review shows:

• Over 700 miles of rivers and streams have been buried by waste rock left over from mountaintop removal practices in which Massey Energy has participated.

• In Oct. 2000, a Massey subsidiary spilled 306 million gallons of coal slurry (mmm… slurry) into Coldwater Creek and Wolf Creek in Martin County, Kentucky. The EPA has called the accident the worst environmental disaster in the Southeastern United States, with a cleanup bill of $50 million.

• Numerous safety laws have been violated at Massey mines with deadly consequences. In 2008, Massey paid $4.2 million – the largest settlement in coal industry history – to the families of workers killed in a West Virginia mine fire worsened by inadequate safety equipment.

We'll file this one together with our Peabody Energy post under "Big Coal Behaving Badly." What a Monday!

Release the Hounds! Chamber of Commerce to Ratchet Up Anti-Climate Bill Spending for 2010 Elections

2010-01-11T13:46:00.003-05:00

At the risk of giving you a case of the Mondays, here's some super cheerful news to start the week.

According to the New York Times, Tom Donohue and the rest of the climate science denier gang at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are planning to double down on their heavy advertising strategy for the 2010 election cycle -- a plan which presumably includes ratcheting up their smear campaign against supporters of a clean energy and climate bill:

The United States Chamber of Commerce, the goliath of the lobbying world, is expected to outline its battle plan next week for the midterms. It spent $25 million on advertisements and get-out-the-vote efforts in the 2006 elections and $36 million in 2008, and will spend far more this year, chamber officials say.

While the U.S. Chamber may run issue-related ads (however misleading those ads may be), it's not allowed to run ads for or against candidates for elected office. However, that may change if the Supreme Court strikes down a number of campaign finance restrictions this week in an expected decision, which would allow the U.S. Chamber to be much more explicit (and assumedly still misleading) in the ads that they run in the 2010 elections.

Need a quick refresher on why more ads from the U.S. Chamber might be less than helpful for the quality of our national dialogue on climate policy? Let's see...

• In August, the Chamber’s Bill Kovacs called for a “Scopes monkey trial” of global warming research, in which a judge would hear arguments from a rogue’s gallery of science deniers that the life’s work of thousands of climate scientists is a complete fabrication.

• Over the course of ensuing month, the Chamber suffered an exodus of major corporate members from its board of directors and, in some cases, its membership rolls altogether who didn’t want to be associated with any such circus. The casualty list included: Apple, Nike, PG & E, Exelon, PNM Resources and a number of smaller companies. Chamber President Tom Donohue’s response? “Bring ‘em on!”

• In October, the Chamber was forced to walk back its repeated claims to represent more than 3 million U.S. businesses. Turns out that’s about a tenfold increase from the true number, 300,000.

• An elite group of only 19 deep-pocketed donors contributed more than one-third of the Chamber’s funding in 2008 (per Greenwire). And when it comes to formulating the Chamber’s policy positions, size matters: an anonymous Chamber member told E&E News in October that “companies with the largest contributions tend to hold more sway with Chamber staff on setting final policy positions.” Any guesses how much ExxonMobil gives to the Chamber? The company sits on the Chamber’s “President’s Advisory Group,” whose members in 2005 gave the Chamber more than $90 million.

• According to an extensive Wonk Room review, the Chamber has spent the last 17 years fighting climate science tooth and nail.

Still unconvinced as to what the Chamber’s coming barrage of climate ads might look like? Take a gander at this throwback gem from the 2007 debate over the Lieberman-Warner clean energy bill:

So, to sum up: be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

Sound Science vs. Special Interest Attack Dogs, Round 98,237...

2010-01-08T13:15:00.011-05:00

A group of scientists headed by researchers from the University of Maryland waded into political sticky wicket this week when they published a report [subscription] in the presigious journal Science calling for an end to the destructive coal mining practice of mountaintop removal.

According to numerous news reports, the team led by Margaret Palmer of the UMD Center for Environmental Sciences said that the massive damage done to water quality and public health by the practice - in which entire mountain summits are blasted and then bulldozed into neighboring streams - strongly outweighs its benefits.

Per coverage by West Virginia Public Broadcasting (a network which covers a state whose name is almost synonymous with the practice of mountaintop removal), the report found that the human health impacts of this disastrous mining practice are considerable:

West Virginia University Department of Community Medicine researcher Michael Hendryx was another co-author of the paper. He spoke about the potential impact to human health. His research shows that disease and death rates are higher around surface mining, even when other health risks, like smoking and poverty are factored out.

“We also see that the effects become stronger as the level of mining increases,” Hendryx said.

Hendryx’s research has also found higher rates of low birth weight babies and babies born with abnormalities in communities where there’s surface mining.

The history of mountaintop removal mining in West Virginia is replete with horrifying tales of the practice's ill-effects on public health in communities near the mines. In September of last year, we at R?S? posted a New York Times profile of one town's struggle:

Jennifer Hall-Massey knows not to drink the tap water in her home near Charleston, W.Va.

In fact, her entire family tries to avoid any contact with the water. Her youngest son has scabs on his arms, legs and chest where the bathwater — polluted with lead, nickel and other heavy metals — caused painful rashes. Many of his brother’s teeth were capped to replace enamel that was eaten away.

Neighbors apply special lotions after showering because their skin burns. Tests show that their tap water contains arsenic, barium, lead, manganese and other chemicals at concentrations federal regulators say could contribute to cancer and damage the kidneys and nervous system.

In the face of this mountain (Really? They're doing a "mountain" pun?) of bad press, both now and back in September, how did the coal industry respond?

Well... predictably. Shockingly so.

Almost every article on the scientists' report contains a quote from a coal industry spokesperson launching personal attacks against the scientists. For example, the Baltimore Sun piece:

Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said he had not yet read the Science paper, but based on press reports of it declared that “there’s nothing new here” and called the journal paper “an advocacy piece."

...and the Washington Post piece:

Chris Hamilton of the West Virginia Coal Association disputed the report's conclusions. "It's just flat-out wrong," Hamilton said, adding that the "so-called lead scientists have a history of activism against mining."

...and the ABC News piece:

NMA spokeswoman Carol Raulston also argues the scientists chose data selectively, ignoring water-quality information that didn't support their theories.

It would appear as if these many coal industry flacks were perhaps - just maybe - working from the same snarly set of talking points. That, or they saw how much play the science-deniers who pushed the phony East Anglia "stolen email scandal" had gotten, and were just a wee bit jealous. Everyone together now:

"Anything Big Oil flacks can do, Big Coal flacks can do better..."