iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Exposed: The Worldwide Efforts Of The Global Energy Lobby To Kill Progress On Climate Change

Huffington Post   First Posted: 03/18/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 03:35 PM ET

Smokestacks

The Center For Public Integrity just released a blockbuster investigative report that details the intense corporate pressure to block an effective global treaty from being reached at the UN Climate Talks in Copenhagen in December, and to halt efforts in individual countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to fierce lobbying behind closed doors, some of the most aggressive tactics deployed by resource giants such as Exxon Mobil, Peabody Coal and other energy and agriculture interests are often the most public: spreading fear and misinformation about the true impact of emissions regulations.

Some examples from the report:

In the poor, but mineral-rich mountains of the eastern United States known as Appalachia, coal millionaire Don Blankenship hosts a rally for "Friends of America" to hear country music and "learn how environmental extremists and corporate America are both trying to destroy your jobs"...


Around the world the story is the much same. Wherever nations have taken the first modest steps to stave off a looming environmental calamity for future generations, they've triggered a backlash from powers rooted in the economy of the past. Opponents of climate action may have different methods as they pressure different capitals, but the message is consistent: Be afraid that a cherished way of life may be lost. Be afraid that a better standard of living will never be had.

Here's a summary of the full extent of the center's investigation:

Starting in July 2009, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists fielded an eight-country team of reporters to uncover the special interests attempting to influence negotiations on a global climate change treaty. Relying on more than 200 interviews, lobbying and campaign contribution records in a half-dozen countries, and on-the-ground reporting from Beijing to Brussels, our team pieced together the story of a far-reaching, multinational backlash by fossil fuel industries and other heavy carbon emitters aimed at slowing progress on control of greenhouse gas emissions. Employing thousands of lobbyists, millions in political contributions, and widespread fear tactics, entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the steps that scientists say are needed to stave off a looming environmental calamity, the investigation found.

The tactics employed have changed over time -- before the Kyoto climate talks, industry lobbyists fervently denied the science behind global warming. Now they generally acknowledge that climate change is real, but attempt to stall and water down any progress in limiting emissions.

The map below breaks down how much each of several major world regions contribute in global emissions. Click on the map for the interactive version on the Center for Public Integrity's website.

Some other fascinating findings from the report:

A commonly repeated mantra in the media is that tensions surrounding the climate talks center on developed countries not wanting to give up certain standards of living, while developing countries fear that regulations will stifle economic growth. In contrast, this study found that "both developed and developing countries are under heavy pressure by fossil fuel industries and other carbon-intensive businesses to slow progress on negotiations and weaken government commitments. The clash cannot simply be framed as one between richer and poorer nations."

The report also highlighted the astronomical amount of money and effort the energy lobby has poured into attempts to stall any meaningful advancement of climate legislation, particularly in the US. "There are now about 2,810 climate lobbyists -- five lobbyists for every member of Congress -- a 400 percent jump from six years earlier."

To read the whole article from the Center for Public Integrity, CLICK HERE.



Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

The Center For Public Integrity just released a blockbuster investigative report that details the intense corporate pressure to block an effective global treaty from being reached at the UN Climate Ta...
The Center For Public Integrity just released a blockbuster investigative report that details the intense corporate pressure to block an effective global treaty from being reached at the UN Climate Ta...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 181
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
02:34 PM on 11/07/2009
The lobbying that goes on between corporations and politicians is the problem. If we made that illegal then we would be in a much better position to actually do something. Until this happen we will never get anything done.
09:07 PM on 11/09/2009
Bingo.

Outlaw ALL contributions for the bribery they are.,
12:52 PM on 11/07/2009
2008 saw what NASA called the Sun’s “blankest year” where 266 of the year's 366 days, there were no sunspots. Sunspot counts for 2009 have been very low, too. This all begs the question: does solar activity have a long-term effect here on Earth? Times of depressed solar activity correspond with times of global cold. From 1645 to 1715, few if any sunspots were seen and Western Europe entered a virtual deep-freeze known as the Little Ice Age. Times of increased solar activity have corresponded with global warming. The 12th and 13th centuries, when the Sun was active, European climate was quite mild. Experts predict that the current solar cycle will peak in 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots. The Sun should remain calm for at least another year. Of course, all this disruption is caused by the lighter-than-air carbon dioxide America has produced in the past few decades. These light gases rise to the sun and disrupt the magnetic causes for sunspots, altering the averages of sunspot activity. The effects on the under developed world is extreme, causing wars, famines and revolutions which disturb the compassionate dictatorships and the order they provide. It must stop! America must be shut down by the Obama Administration, beginning with elimination of the middle class and all its outrageous demands for goods and services. Now, this fits neatly with Al Gore's objectives.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
02:44 PM on 11/08/2009
"This all begs the question: does solar activity have a long-term effect here on Earth?"

Of course it does, the sun is the source of 99.9% of Earth's energy budget, after all.
Variation in solar output over the nominal 11 year sunspot cycle is around 1.3 watts/square meter from minimum to maximum. This is comparable to what the increase in CO2 produces, around 1.5 watts.

At fist glance this should be enough to nearly offset the effect of the increase in CO2, but remember:
1) solar output averages out over the ~11 year cycle, while the effect of CO2 not just remains constant, but in fact increases as more is added each year
2) the Sun shines on only half of Earth's surface at any given time, while the greenhouse effect is over Earth's entire surface 24/7/365

This helps explain why despite the Sun being it's most quiet in around a century, AND 2008 being a La Nina year, global mean temps remain among the highest in the temperature record. In fact, several surface temperature records were set in 2009.

continued....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Organic-Guy
Organic Gardener, Carpenter, Philosopher, Agitator
12:07 AM on 11/10/2009
What kind of gibberish is this?
01:55 PM on 11/06/2009
Corperate lobbiests may be partly to blame but i think the failure of resolving the problem of our generation is far more complex than an industry push. According to Yvo de Boer the UN climate chief Copenhagen won't glean any results. I would start to question the ability of mitigation and diplomacy in solving this crisis
http://envirogy.wordpress.com
01:36 PM on 11/06/2009
Although corporate lobbying may be an influence upon climate negotiations they are not the be and end all of climate discussion. Developed and developing countries are coming at this from a different perspective that according to Yvo de Boer UN climate chief cannot be remedied by Copenhagen. Commercial interest and a nation states forward progression financially are so inexplicably linked that the hindrance of business is a real concern for nations not just for the fossil fuel industry.
So is corporate interest the biggest culprit of failed negotiations or has diplomacy failed us in general?
http://envirogy.wordpress.com/
08:12 AM on 11/06/2009
So, when do we stop touting the development of new, cleaner energy sources as moral imperative to save the earth, and start selling the idea that it'll make energy cleaner, cheaper, and better?

People can deny climate change all they like. I'd like to see them deny their desire to have their own gas/energy bills drop. If the end result is the same, maybe it's time to change the message.
01:19 AM on 11/06/2009
enviornmentists become climate scientists. they start with a conclusion then set forth to find facts to support it. when government sees an opportunity to take power and create a new tax they start shoveling money for research. everyone jumps on board. now it's a concensus!!! the concensus is - if you want massive government grants you must believe in our religion.

thankfully the gig is up and the public isn't buying it anymore.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
04:32 PM on 11/06/2009
"enviornmentists become climate scientists. they start with a conclusion then set forth to find facts to support it."

Ahhh, no, this is a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method and an outright slander of science and scientists.

Scientists start with observation and measurement of a physical phenomenon (in this case the measured increase of both global mean temperature and CO2), then develop a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon. They then test the hypothesis using experiment and further observation. If the hypothesis is found wanting it is revised to explain the physical reality and tested again. After sufficient testing and gathering of supporting evidence the hypothesis is published in the scientific literature for other scientists to challenge and test. If the hypothesis passes their challenges and tests and is accepted by most scientists within the field as most likely correct then it is said that there is a scientific consensus. (Look up the common definition of consensus. It is very much part of science.)

it is global warming/climate change deniers that start with a conclusion (global warming is not happening, and if it is it is not caused by humans, and if it is it is not harmful, etc.) and set forth to find any facts, hearsay or unsubstantiated assertions to support it, no matter how flimsy, suspect or mutually contradictory.

The gig is indeed up: there is a strong anti-science tendency among the general public based on ignorance and religious, economic and political ideology.
10:34 PM on 11/06/2009
Yeah. Economics like this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/6510147/Carbon-traders-deny-sub-prime-crisis-brewing.html

Enjoy your new sub-prime crisis.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
shockmagog
Infrared hair, UV shades, SPF 110 dome.
03:39 PM on 11/07/2009
Yes, matty, I agree with you. A direct carbon tax would be much better.

As it says in the article you linked to:

"...Friends of the Earth wants carbon trading to be replaced by direct taxation and regulation of emissions production, arguing that the current system only enriches traders and does not drive carbon reductions."

However, as long as carbon trading is not deregulated as the banking system was, it's what we're driven to by those who don't approve of a carbon tax, or don't even believe Global Warming is occurring.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
11:32 AM on 11/07/2009
It is too soon for that false claim. The resurgence of the environmentalist movement and the recognition of the human contribution to global warming is too recent. Also, if we follow out the logic of your scenario, they would have had to convince all the existing scientists, who by your rule would have been prejudice against global warming, to give them passing grades, approve their research, and give them jobs.
11:18 PM on 11/05/2009
What would corporations have to do to be prosecuted for sabotage of our efforts to deal with global climate destabilisation? Not long ago political and business leaders thought slavery was a good business model. That level of ruthless greed is still alive today. What are the FBI, SEC and the CIA doing with this evidence sleeping like they were when the financial corporations wrecked the worlds economy. A group best described as radical fundamentalist capitalist are profiting immensely from what must ultimately be seen as a global environmental crimes against nature and humanity. If destabilising our planets climate is not a global environmental crime, what do our political and corporate leaders think it is?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Overtone
See bio on the Aesop Institute website
09:13 PM on 11/05/2009
Magnetic generators are slowly moving toward the market that will replace batteries with solid-state devices (no moving parts). Since they reflect new science, the very idea is readily dismissed. However, Hans Coler demonstrated such an invention in 1925 in Germany - and Nobel physicist Werner Heisenberg said in 1927. “I believe we can utilize magnetism as an energy source”.

A new way to use Hydrogen energy is surfacing. It promises to make a barrel of water the equivalent of 200 barrels of oil. BlackLight Power has published papers covering 50 or so experiments describing their work with fractional Hydrogen. Rowan University has independently performed experiments that they believe validate that work, producing far more heat than can be explained by textbook science. The published protocol allows laboratories elsewhere to repeat the experiments. As that occurs, it will become clear that it indicates a new form of energy is available.

That will change the landscape as far as energy is concerned. It has been discovered that Hydrogen’s electron orbit can be made to collapse, becoming a much smaller sphere. A tremendous amount of energy is thus released. The new atoms do not need to burn with an oxidizer to liberate energy. We call this Energy from Collapsing Hydrogen Orbitals - ECHO.

ECHO is expected to make possible a Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine - SPICE. It promises to sip a small amount of water as fuel.

Hard to believe? Of course! Laboratories need to try the Rowan experiments for themselves!
07:44 PM on 11/05/2009
For readers honestly trying to understand background facts, I've posted a graph of our energy use from various sources over the last two centuries (from the US DOE's 2006 Annual Energy Review) online at:
http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=116

the reality of global warming and ecological consequences:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=95

and increasing sea levels:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=125

We use lots of energy, with too many emissions of greenhouse gases, and still have about 300 years worth of coal. Our concern is surviving a changing climate. We depend on the present climate for growing crops right where farms just happen to be. With climate change comes not just warming, but broader variations in things like last frost date, first frost date, and rainfall patterns. Food production depends on these climate measures. As the climate changes, insect pests and plant pathogens find new habitable areas of the globe, perhaps in these agricultural areas. Nobody can predict whether such things will happen, but if they do, and food production fails, I would call that a problem.

So, what is an acceptable risk? How confident are you that no problems will arise? Humans experienced potato famines, changed eastern forests through release of the chestnut blight, and so on. Climate change brings on new risks. Are you comfortable with a 10% risk of agricultural collapse? 1%? 50%? The sooner we find new, fossil-carbon-free sources, the better.

Will Wilson
04:03 PM on 11/06/2009
Will,

I enjoyed reading your blog post on U.S. Energy Use, as well as some of the comments. I agree with most of your positions on energy production and consumption, but (there’s always a “but”, right?) I was puzzled by your stance on PHEVs.

PHEVs and BEVs (battery electric vehicles) are the ultimate flex-fuel vehicles. They can be powered by electricity from solar, wind, waves, geothermal, nuclear, biomass, as well as electricity from coal, natural gas, and oil-fired generating stations.

EVs are extremely efficient (up to 4X more efficient than a comparable internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle), and even when they are powered with electricity that is 100% generated from coal, they still produce lower CO2 emissions per mile than a comparable ICE vehicle. EVs become cleaner as the energy mix becomes cleaner, whereas ICE vehicles emit more CO2, and other pollutants, as they age.
06:51 PM on 11/06/2009
For some reason the system did not post the middle section of my comment, so here it is again.

Obviously, the more renewable energy that is used to power the EVs, the cleaner they become. As I’m sure you’re already aware, in the U.S. energy mix, coal generated electricity represents about 51% of all the electricity generated (and hopefully that %age will drop rapidly in the very near future). Some jurisdictions, such as the province of Ontario, Canada, are moving to completely eliminate coal from their energy mix (currently at 16%) as early as 2014.

http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/energy/electricity/

With more movement away from coal, and other fossil fuels, the grid gets cleaner, and the case for EVs gets better.

Another thing about using electricity for transportation: At the present time, demand for electricity drops dramatically overnight. However, we cannot just turn off coal-fired power plants when demand drops for several hours. The plants keep running, and keep burning coal. Most of the electricity generated overnight is wasted. Electric vehicles can be programmed to charge overnight, and thus use electricity that might otherwise be wasted.
04:04 PM on 11/06/2009
Obviously, the more renewable energy that is used to power the EVs, the cleaner they become. As I’m sure you’re already aware, in the U.S. energy mix, coal generated electricity represents about 51% of all the electricity generated (and hopefully that %age will drop rapidly in the very near future). Some jurisdictions, such as the province of Ontario, Canada, are moving to completely eliminate coal from their energy mix (currently at 16%) as early as 2014.

http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/energy/electricity/

With more movement away from coal, and other fossil fuels, the grid gets cleaner, and the case for EVs gets better.

Another thing about using electricity for transportation: At the present time, demand for electricity drops dramatically overnight. However, we cannot just turn off coal-fired power plants when demand drops for several hours. The plants keep running, and keep burning coal. Most of the electricity generated overnight is wasted. Electric vehicles can be programmed to charge overnight, and thus use electricity that might otherwise be wasted.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
07:11 PM on 11/05/2009
The shills here who deny climate change are helping corporate lobbyists because they afraid of losing some "cherished way of life." What is so frightening about green technologies? The subsidies they may get from government are a friction of what the coal companies and Exxon receive.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
08:01 AM on 11/06/2009
say rp..

i haven't seen anyone here of note deny that the climate changes.

the argument continues to be 1) how much do humans really influence cc..

and 2) how much control if any do we have over cc.. EVEN IF we influence it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
06:10 PM on 11/06/2009
I guess I should always include the word "anthropogenic." Also, I meant to say "fraction" and not "friction." So many typos! Fumes, how is your golf game, below 100 yet! My swing would make you cry! I'm terrrible at golf!
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
11:36 AM on 11/07/2009
The IPCC concludes that human actions have caused more than half of the global temperature increases and it goes without saying that we have control over what we do.
01:43 PM on 11/06/2009
What if the cherished way of life is a big big lie. Monster homes, Monster vehicles, and monster ecological and energy footprints are unsustainable and criminal negligence of the impact.. Corporate tobacco sold big Big lies and manufactured an epidemic of illness, cancer and death. supposidly inexpensive energy from coal is a big Big lie because politicians are permitting those corporations to dump the cost of mercury contamination, the cost of mountain top destruction, of destroying rivers, of destabilising our planets climate, the deaths and illness from smog on you and your community. Cheep energy from coal is government accounting fraud of the impact corporations are having on our planet.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
06:13 PM on 11/06/2009
Gordon, you are very right. The costs of cheap energy are enormous. It is like buying really cheap food for children in an effort to save money. Eventually they develop health problems and have problems with obesity. Look at Detroit! They fought for years producing energy efficient cars with higher mileage. What happened? They all eventually almost went out of business. Thanks for your reply!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Aneesia
05:52 PM on 11/05/2009
Kind of lets you know what lobbyists are for......bribery in America. Business in America is mostly screw the people, let's line our own pockets while we can.
04:55 PM on 11/05/2009
Oil, coal, timber, and other fossil fuel companies have declared war on the world. We must make bribery illegal in order to reduce their power significantly. EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON MAKING BRIBERY (PRIVATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE) ILLEGAL!
11:10 AM on 11/07/2009
Dont allow your Congressman to behave unethically. Start there. Hold their feet to the fire.

IMHO Congressman should not be allowed to raise campaign funds in Washington DC, or while Congress is in session. Lobby & PAC donations would have to be made at the Congressman's local district office, while Congress is not in Session. What this would do....... Lobby's and PAC's would hire a shady local lawyer to deliver the check, this creature would effectivly function as a "temp lobbyist". The first day Congress is out of session, Armored Trucks and a Police Escort deliver the "temp Lobbyists" to the Congressional Office. The "temp lobbyist" would then cross a picket line, consisting of protesters like yourself.. and right wingers like myself. It would be more civilized than the current system.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:23 PM on 11/05/2009
It is not that hard to counter any "standard of living" propaganda with basic economic programs that will both boost renewables, increase democracy AND clean the earth up. Feed in tariffs, which are per-kWh payments can be made to real people (including people in Appalachia) for producing more clean electricity on their homes and business rooftops than they consume. This will create huge numbers of jobs, improve property values, prevent eminent domain, preserve viewsheds and functioning ecosystems, clean the air and prevent global warming, all while increasing the democracy, reliability and security of our electrical grid.

This is a Libertarian, Republican, Democratic and Green solution, with something for everyone but Big Energy, and aren't we pretty much done opening our veins for them anyhow? Unless we fight HARD to get loan programs for efficiency upgrades and solar panels, coupled with feed in tariffs, we are gonna see Chevron, BP, Goldman Sachs, Bechtel, Pickens and all these other Big Energy mercenaries bleed us dry not just with Big Oil and Big Coal, but also with Big Wind and Big Solar, which are almost as bad.

Time to stand up for our rights and tell Big Energy of ALL types "Don't Tread On Me! Pay me fairly for producing clean energy and feeding it into the grid, and stop monopolizing our electricity, ripping us off and killing our planet!"
03:45 PM on 11/05/2009
Oh, but we're supposed to not listen to the evidence for global warming, because those presenting it stand to somehow gain financially if we take action to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Now I'm confused. It seems like other people stand to gain financially if we DON'T take action.

Oh, how will I ever know what to do?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
shockmagog
Infrared hair, UV shades, SPF 110 dome.
12:42 PM on 11/06/2009
I suppose actually THINKING would be the next logical step.

Your sarcasm is duly appreciated, however.
02:45 PM on 11/05/2009
Water, land pollution, over fishing and hunting that does drive some species to the brink of extinction is what we need to work on, not reducing CO2.

Not only that, how about we figure out how to get off this rock in case nature decides to end our reign.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
coveark
Obstructionists, get off the hill !!!
03:58 PM on 11/05/2009
Actually it all should be taken care of.............................no ships for us like in Wall-e.

If we manufactured the bare minimum of products................went back to reuseable glass and simply outlawed the indescriminant use of plastics...........................there would probably be more than a century of cleanup and revival work to keep our whole planet busy....................
07:32 PM on 11/05/2009
What is the point of protecting species if the ecosystems that support them collapse? And how is reducing hunting and fishing going to avert coastal inundation and agricultural collapse?