You are browsing the archive for coal.

Man Who Defrauded EPA Calls EPA “Fraudulent” on FOX

10:38 am in Uncategorized by Connor Gibson

Crossposted from PolluterWatch.

If you’re John Stossel and you want to host a segment to rail against the US Environmental Protection Agency, who ought you to call?
Environmental Protection Agency EPA
It turns out, a convicted man who was sentenced to six months in prison for defrauding the EPA!

Stossel’s guest last night, Jay Lehr, was sentenced to six months–serving three–in a minimum security federal prison back in 1991, and his organization at the time was fined $200,000. So Jay Lehr knows about EPA corruption better than anyone: he was the guy caught “falsifying employee time sheets on a government contract” for EPA, according to the Columbus Dispatch.

Ironically, Lehr told Stossel that EPA is “fraudulent” in estimates of amounts of pollution that pose hazards to people’s health, such as particulate matter in coal pollution, estimated to prematurely kill 13,000 Americans every year, according to the American Lung Association.

Jay Lehr is now the “science director” at a climate chance science denying organization called The Heartland Institute, which has received money from coal mining company Murray Energy.

John Stossel did not mention Lehr’s fraud conviction. Perhaps he didn’t know his guest defrauded US taxpayers, but Stossel and Lehr share a flair for denial of global warming for polluting corporations like Koch Industries, which has financial ties to both men. Heartland is part of the Koch brothers-funded State Policy Network–the massive apparatus of state-based and national front groups that push political agendas that are favorable to billionaire executives like Charles Koch. Heartland itself has received money from Koch foundations.

Stossel hosts “Stossel in the Classroom,” a product of the Koch-funded Center for Independent Thought. When Stossel ran a TV segment in 2009 that was intended to mislead students about the scientific reality of climate change, Koch’s Claude Lambe Foundation gave CIT $35,000. The Center for Independent Thought has continued to receive money from Koch foundations every year since, according to IRS tax filings.

According to a Heartland Institute email advertising Lehr’s attendance on Stossel’s show, Mr. Lehr’s relevance in attacking the EPA comes from a Heartland report he wrote urging the agency to be “systematically dismantled.” This coming from a group soliciting money from coal company Murray Energy, former ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol and the Charles Koch Foundation.

This all fits into the framework that is becoming nauseatingly familiar to American voters: billionaires pull the strings, and our voices don’t matter. Stossel is just one of many Koch-funded or Koch friendly media personalities that wrap Charles Koch’s values in patriotic rhetoric and un-factual packaging. Meanwhile, people like Jay Lehr at groups like Heartland continue to carry Koch’s water into the policy arena, influencing politicians to do things like undermine enforcement of laws to reduce air and water pollution or mitigate dangerous climate change.

SourceDavid Lore, “Minimum Security, Maximum Cost: State Spends $53,000 Per Prison Bed to House Mostly Nonviolent Criminals,” Columbus Dispatch (Ohio) September 6, 1992.

USA V. LEHR, ET AL, Case Number: 2:91-CR-00068, Charges Filed 04/26/1991, U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio.

Hat tip to Deep ClimateRussel Seitz and Thomas Miles for leading to primary sources on Jay Lehr’s conviction.
Read the rest of this entry →

VIDEO: Coal Lobbyist Jeff Holmstead Confronted by Greenpeace

7:51 am in Uncategorized by Connor Gibson

 

If you’re a coal lobbyist like Jeff Holmstead, getting stuck in an elevator with Greenpeace activists is an inconvenient occupational hazard. It’s worse if you can’t catch a cab during an uncomfortable conversation about your work to attack pollution laws. See this K Street confrontation for yourself.

If you’ve followed the news around EPA’s proposed Clean Power Rule, which aims to reduce the U.S. power sector’s large contributions to global warming, you’ve probably seen Jeffrey Holmstead in the news. Usually, Holmstead is presented as a “partner” at Bracewell & Giuliani, and as a former EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation under George W. Bush.

This descriptor fails to present Holmstead’s current and past work as a registered lobbyist for coal companies, and leaves out the destructive decisions that Holmstead made in his stint at EPA, which directly contributed to the premature death of tens of thousands of people in this country. It leaves out the $17.5 million that coal industry clients have paid Bracewell & Giuliani for its lobbying services, where Mr. Holmstead is a prized hired gun against the EPA.

This is why I began our tense conversation with a simple question: why doesn’t Jeff Holmstead use his skills, qualifications and experience to find real solutions to global warming?

Every time Mr. Holmstead has appeared in the news to discuss the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Rule to reduce U.S. carbon emissions, he doesn’t have much good to say. “As someone who believes in the rule of law, I think this clearly goes beyond what EPA is allowed to do under the Clean Air Act,” Holmstead said at an event yesterday at the Bipartisan Policy Center, where I asked if his naysaying is simply to help Arch coal sell coal. Notice that Holmstead doesn’t respond:  see minute 7:30 in bottom video posted by BPC.

Mr. Holmstead’s criticisms aren’t surprising for a coal lobbyist, but Holmstead rarely acknowledges his coal clients and instead uses his former EPA credentials and his legal expertise to help steer Washington DC politicians, lawyers and journalists toward the coal industry’s interpretations of proposed environmental regulations.

Holmstead likes to conflate rising electricity rates with the average consumer’s utility bill, ignoring the proposed rule’s well-known intent to reduce consumer bills through energy efficiency targets. This deceptive talking point was called out by Susan Tierney of the Analysis Group at yesterday’s event at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Holmstead knows this isn’t honest–he was previously called out by NRDC’s Frances Beineke during a segment on The Diane Rehm Show.

He talks about how reducing U.S. emissions won’t make a dent in reducing global emissions, thanks to rising coal use in coutries like China and India, as if the U.S. first real national attempt to reduce emissions won’t give us legitimacy in global climate negotiations. When I used this as an example of one of Mr. Holmstead’s obstruction tactics.

With the science understood, with the financial stakes so high and with shocking estimates of the current human death toll from global warming, why does Jeffrey Holmstead make a career working for an industry that is killing people?

Read the rest of this entry →

Climate Change Explained in Cartoons by Humorous Economist

6:47 am in Uncategorized by Connor Gibson

A comedian economist presents climate change in a new way.I just read the Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change, which I’m about to highly recommend to you and anyone you have ever known. I’ll even tease you with pretty previews of the book’s pages, below. But first, let me start with an admission:

Environmentalists have a reputation for lacking in the humor department.

This stereotype is unfortunate. My colleagues here at Greenpeace and most of my own crunchy friends are genuinely witty people with good senses of humor. Good enough to make me laugh soy-milk out of my nose once I’m alerted to the kale that was stuck in my teeth all day.* And websites like Grist have done a great job bringing some LOL’s to the WTF’s inherent in environmental reporting.

But our subject matter can be overwhelming in scope: global climate disruption, deforestation, human rights violations abound, freshwater depletion, ocean acidification…..sorry, I just stopped listening to myself to avoid the temptation to hide in bed forever.

Much like environmentalists, today’s economists don’t typically earn a popular reputation for being especially funny. But Dr. Yoram Bauman, the “Stand Up Economist,” has a flair for humor in face of serious problems that he’s solving with well-established economic tools and analyses. Through the quirky cartoon illustrations of Grady Klein, Dr. Bauman has cranked out a series of light-hearted guides to microeconomics, macroeconomics, and now … The Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change!

This graphic book takes readers on a eyeball-friendly journey through our Earth’s history, the tumultuous evolution of its climate system, explanations of key science supporting our understanding of climate change, and specific economic solutions that Dr. Bauman say we’ll need to employ to insure ourselves from potentially catastrophic global warming. You’ll also learn why our climate is like a compost pile, the types of one-liner jokes told by single-cell organisms, and why human’s aren’t so great at cleaning up dog poop in public spaces (hint: Garrett Hardin).

Not only is it entertaining, it’s packed full of facts, presented as cartoons and peppered with a few transparently-unrealistic zingers. You can read it in an afternoon, and so could your kid, or your grandparent. And thanks to the illustrations and simple analogies, I’d bet they will retain more of the information.

Here’s a rundown of why I liked the book, with a few minor critiques at the end.

 

Real Climate Science, Trans-disciplinary Presentation

Core to this book’s utility is its accurate portrayal of science. Dr. Bauman’s work cites the most contemporary data from scientific authorities like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate Data Center. When graphs and exact scientific models are used, Bauman and Klein attribute the work right there on the page, so you can check the source yourself. This is the coolest climate context since SkepticalScience.com. #GeekingRightNow.

Read the rest of this entry →

Years of Living Dangerous Examines Climate Deniers & Kansas Wind Power

11:28 am in Uncategorized by Connor Gibson

 

Next Monday, SHOWTIME’s Years of Living Dangerously series will air an episode focused in part on wind energy in Kansas. Teaser clips posted by SHOWTIME review how wind energy has been a lifeline for farmers suffering from increased drought due to climate change, and interview fossil fuel industry lobbyists who are still peddling climate science denial in Kansas. Watch a teaser here: Years of Living Dangerously – Next on Episode 6

Wind energy is very popular in Kansas. According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Kansas’ wind industry employs thousands of people each year as new wind turbines are rapidly constructed. Kansas currently has 800 megawatts of wind energy capacity under construction, on top of almost 3,000MW in existing capacity.

The news gets better, because Kansas has enormous potential for more clean energy growth. While Kansas is currently ranked 8th among US states’ current wind energy generation, it has the 2nd most potential of any state, after Texas.

Caricature of Climate Change Denier James Taylor

Climate Change Denier James Taylor

Don’t try telling that to James Taylor though. No, not the singer-songwriter, but the climate change denier James Taylor you see in the SHOWTIME teaser above. This obscure lawyer at The Heartland Institute has made his cozy career undermining public recognition of how serious global warming is, and fighting against policy solutions to climate change. Here’s how that works:

Fossil fuel companies extract, distribute and burn dirty energy like coal, oil and gas. These companies don’t like the explosion in clean energy competition, an industry that itself is a lot less explosive, corrosive and polluting (have you seen coverage of the massive, deadly coal mine disaster in Turkey??). Rather than innovate their companies to respond to the needs of the 21st Century, polluting companies like Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Peabody coal and Duke Energy are funding a vast, coordinated network of political front groups, fake grassroots organizations and lobbying firms to kill clean energy incentives in Kansas and other at least 14 other states.

Just two weeks ago, Kansas state politicians narrowly defended the state’s renewable portfolio standard. The RPS law is a major incentive for clean energy jobs, requiring utility companies to gradually phase in electricity sources that don’t exacerbate global climate change, or poison the air we breathe and the water we drink. As reported in the Washington Post, this attack on clean energy was the third within the last two years introduced by Kansas politicians affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), backed by ALEC’s friends in the State Policy Network, like climate change deniers at The Heartland Institute, political heavyweights like Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers’ main political group, Americans for Prosperity.

SHOWTIME’s Years of Living Dangerously will take a closer look at how these front groups and politicians conspired against Kansas’ clean energy industry, siding with fossil fuel billionaire Charles Koch instead of the farmers and wind industry employees who are building the infrastructure of today’s energy landscape. Here’s a longer preview of SHOWTIME’s forthcoming episode about the effort to build wind energy in Kansas, and the fossil fuel industry-funded enemies of that effort: Years of Living Dangerously Season 1: Episode 6 Clip – Droughts

Crossposted from Greenpeace’s The EnvironmentaLIST: Years of Living Dangerously: Climate Change Denial and Kansas Wind Energy

ALEC Doesn’t Care About Free Markets: Explaining ALEC’s Shill Bills

8:51 am in Uncategorized by Connor Gibson

Update 8/11/2014: I asked ALEC staffer John Eick about the ALEC free markets contradiction on camera, to no avail:

Today in Kansas City, Missouri, the American Legislative Exchange Council is bringing your state legislators to a closed-door meeting with corporate lobbyists to ghostwrite “model” laws to bring to your state.

ALEC Logo: Limited Government, Free Markets & Federalism crossed out in favor of Corporate LobbyingAs usual, ALEC’s latest conference will be painted with patriotic rhetoric and all of the typical buzzwords: “free markets,” “liberty,” “Jeffersonian,” “Prosperity,”…you get the gist. But in typical political & public relations fashion, these words are a feeble shell obscuring an anti-populist, Big Business lobbying campaign.

The American Legislative Exchange Council doesn’t care about free markets. I know it says it does, and I know they’re Tweeting with the #FreeMarkets hashtag today, but ALEC doesn’t honor the concept by any means. This is easily proven by the extremely narrow range ALEC’s own pay-to-pollute policies.

A simple glance through ALEC’s catalog of dirty energy bills reveals a limited range of work serving the corporations and billionaires bankrolling its operations–not exactly a genuine libertarian utopia. Of ALEC’s 25 “energy” model bills, 24 serve fossil fuel interests and undermine clean energy, as documented in full below.

This may interest ALEC’s friends who actually do care about free markets, since ALEC actively works against the concept when its member companies demand so. Case in point: tea party and free market groups like Tell Utilities Solar won’t be Killed (TUSK) are pushing back on ALEC and its monopolistic utility members for attempting to impose fees on distributed solar electricity generation.

ALEC considers people installing solar panels on their rooftops and feeding extra electricity into the grid to be “freeriders,” and will host a luncheon today to discuss how ALEC legislators can help utilities and the Koch brothers make small-scale solar electricity generation more costly.

Greenpeace just confirmed that at least six utility companies quietly dumped ALEC in recent years. These utilities made no promise to maintain disassociation but responded with a rhetorical defense of their commitments to climate and sustainability initiatives, which is completely counter to ALEC’s ongoing work.

Undeniable Anti-Free Market Trend in ALEC’s Polluter Policies

ALEC has many bills in a few narrow categories that all expand power and government resources for fossil fuel and nuclear companies, complimented by model bills to stifle competition from renewable energy and fuel interests.

How many of these ALEC bills promote renewable energy or renewable fuels? How many ALEC bills propose repeals of coal, oil, gas or nuclear subsidies?

Zero.

The closest ALEC comes is a single model bill to exempt some energy efficient appliances from state & local sales and use tax focuses on consumer-level activity rather than broad systemic issues of infrastructure, pollution reduction, 0r science-based climate policy. This means 24 of ALEC’s 25 “energy” bills are handouts to polluters.

Here’s a rundown of ALEC’s dirty energy bills, which ALEC’s staff routinely characterize in order to sell these bad ideas to the American public. Check for yourself, and call out the only thing ALEC has ever recycled: dishonesty.

ALEC bills Promoting, Protecting or Expanding the Use of Fossil Fuel & Nuclear Fuels: 16

  • Power Plant Siting Actstreamlines coal & nuclear plant construction siting
  • Resolution in Support of Energy Security, Production, Distribution, Environmental Protection and Economic Growth in the United Statesurges Congress to offer special protection to the coal industry as clean energy growths creates more competition
  • Resolution on Mandatory Electricity Consumer Disclosure Informationurges Congress to forbid mandatory disclosure by utilities of their electricity sources. This would cut off consumers’ ability to make decisions about which types of energy they prefer. For instance, a consumer wouldn’t be able to access information on an energy source’s “nonpower attributes” like pollution, carbon intensity, and fuel type, and wouldn’t be able to chose which energy sources to support. This is a way for polluting companies to reduce attention to benefits of clean energy.
  • Resolution on Best Available Control Technology For Coal-Based Electric Generation“interprets” coal pollution control laws in ways that are more favorable to coal companies
  • Utility Construction Review Actwith key provisions of Construction Work In Progress (CWIP), this bill allows utility companies to charge their ratepayers for construction projects before the construction begins, placing financial burden and risk on consumers. CWIP is most commonly associated with prohibitively expensive nuclear projects.
  • Intrastate Coal and Use Actremoves federal environmental oversight of coal that is mined and used within a single state
  • Intrastate Oil and Gas Use Actremoves federal environmental oversight of oil & gas that is extracted and used within a single state
  • Resolution on Responsible Resource Developmenta resolution pressuring federal politicians and agencies to remain absent from oil & gas fracking oversight, placing all regulatory burden on the states, which lack capacity for safe oversight.
  • Resolution Requesting that the Federal Government Confer and Consult with the States on Management of Public Lands and Energy Resourcesone of ALEC’s model policies to decrease federal control of public land. Fossil fuel extractors generally have an easier time lobbying and obtaining land through state authorities where political resources are more limited.
  • Resolution to Retain State Authority over Hydraulic Fracturing – created to block pending US Environmental Protection Agency regulation of fracking by placing oversight with state regulators, who lack capacity for safe oversight.
  • Resolution Urging Congress to End the Outer Continental Shelf Moratorium on Oil and Natural Gas Exploration and Productionputs state-level pressure on Congress to expand offshore oil drilling on the U.S. coastline and give states jurisdiction over offshore drilling near their coastal borders. ALEC “retired” this model bill at its December 2013 meeting in Washington, DC.
  • Pipeline Replacement and Infrastructure Modernization and Enhancement Actwould allow gas pipeline operators to replace pipes on the dime of electricity ratepayers
  • Resolution in Support of the Keystone XL Pipelinestate legislative pressure on Congress and the U.S. State Department to fully-approve TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline. TransCanada Pipelines is a member of ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture task force.
  • The Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Composition Actpushed through ALEC by ExxonMobil, this false “disclosure” bill actually serves to keep fracking chemicals secret from the public
  • Resolution Urging Quick Congressional Action on the Recommendations of The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Futurestate pressure on Congress and the Executive branch to fast track a non-permanent radioactive nuclear waste disposal locations
  • Resolution Urging the President and Congress to Act Expeditiously in Procuring a Site or Sites for the Storage of High-Level Radioactive Wastestate pressure on Congress and the President to hasten finding storage sites for radioactive nuclear waste

 

ALEC bills Promoting, Protecting or Expanding the Use of Renewable Energy & Renewable Fuels: 0

  • None.

 

ALEC bills to Undermine Clean Energy Incentives or Development and promote use of Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Energy: 8

Read the rest of this entry →

Oops! CEO of Corporate Front Network Lied to Reporters

9:21 am in Uncategorized by Connor Gibson

Last week, the Center for Media and Democracy and ProgressNow released a series of reports on how the State Policy Network coordinates an agenda carried out by affiliate “Stink Tanks” in all 50 states. Responding to questions from reporters, SPN’s CEO Tracie Sharp demanded that each of the seemingly independent groups were “fiercely independent.”

Koch Bros Caricature

Koch money is behind SPN’s state “stinktanks.”

But Jane Mayer at the New Yorker reports Tracie Sharp said the opposite to attendees of SPN’s recent annual meeting. In Oklahoma City last September, Ms. Sharp plainly told her associates how to coordinate a broad agenda and pander directly to the interests of billionaire funders like the Koch brothers and the Searle family for grants:

Sharp went on to say that, like IKEA, the central organization would provide “the raw materials” along with the “services” needed to assemble the products. Rather than acting like passive customers who buy finished products, she wanted each state group to show the enterprise and creativity needed to assemble the parts in their home states. “Pick what you need,” she said, “and customize it for what works best for you.”

During the meeting, Sharp also acknowledged privately to the members that the organization’s often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. “The grants are driven by donor intent,” she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, “the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.” She said that the donors also sometimes determined in which states their money would be spent.

Tracie Sharp responded to the New Yorker with a generic statement that didn’t address her contradictory statements. And who knows if there’s anything useful she could say at this point, The State Policy Network was just caught with its pants down.

For those who don’t spend their days reading about the inner workings of the corporate-conservative political machine, the State Policy Network isn’t a familiar name. But it’s an important entity. SPN serves as the umbrella of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and all of its state and national allies pushing a coordinated corporate-friendly agenda through all 50 states.

SPN and ALEC have led the coordinated attack on clean energy in states like North Carolina, Kansas and now Ohio. Dozens of SPN groups are longtime players in the Koch-funded climate change denial movement. By orchestrating against policies to lessen global warming impacts or by directly undermining the science, SPN’s efforts have ranged from urging inaction on global climate treaties and forcing teachers to misrepresent climate science to their students.

Beyond shilling for the coal, oil, gas and nuclear companies bankrolling ALEC and SPN’s operations, these coordinated entities attack  public employee unions, wages and pensions, block Medicaid expansion, suppress legitimate voters, push to defund and privatize schools, and undermine choice in women’s health.

And who pays for SPN’s work in all 50 states?

SPN’s main purpose is to advance the interests of its corporate funders: dirty coal and petrochemical industries, the tobacco giants, agribusiness, pharmaceutical companies, private education firms, tech and telecom companies, and the usual web of trade associations, law firms and lobby shops paid to represent each of those industries. Corporations use SPN to advance political campaigns they are typically embarrassed to associate with publicly.

The State Policy Network also serves to advance an ideological agenda that tends to undermine the interests of most Americans in favor of those who are particularly wealthy and well-connected.

The Koch brothers fit this description, of course. But they’re joined by a legion of lesser known multi-millionaires and billionaires, sometimes coordinating directly with the Kochs.

These SPN funders include Richard Mellon Scaife, Phil Anschutz, Art Pope, the Coors family, the DeVos family, the Searle family, and the remains of the Bradley family fortune, to name a few of the better known of these sources of dark money. Few citizens recognize the names of this quiet minority of political puppetmasters, but people still feel the bruise of plutocratic spending as state and national politics are pushed to new extremes.

More on the State Policy Network can be read in the National Stink Tanks report. SourceWatch has the full list of SPN members and affiliates and SPN funders.

Check Greenpeace.org for more Koch Facts.

Read the rest of this entry →

REPORT: Tobacco-style Climate Denial – Greenpeace’s “Dealing in Doubt”

11:08 am in Uncategorized by Connor Gibson

Written by Cindy Baxter, crossposted from Greenpeace: Dealing in Doubt.

Who likes being lied to by people paid by the oil industry who pose as “experts” on climate change?

Did you know it’s been going on for 25 years?

In a couple of weeks, the UN’s official advisors on climate change science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will update its global assessment on the issue. Yet in the background, more attacks on the climate science are underway.

For the last quarter century, the climate science denial machine, its cogs oiled by fossil fuel money, has been attacking climate science, climate scientists and every official US report on climate change, along with State and local efforts – with the aim of undermining action on climate change.

Our new report, Dealing in Doubt, sets out the history of these attacks going back to the early 90s. These are attacks based on anti-regulatory, so called “free market” ideology, not legitimate scientific debate, using a wide range of dirty tricks: from faked science, attacks on scientists, fake credentials, cherry-picking scientific conclusions: a campaign based on the old tobacco industry mantra: “doubt is our product”.

We give special attention to perhaps today’s poster child of the climate denial machine’s free market think tanks, the Heartland Institute, which is about to launch a new version of its “NIPCC” or “climate change reconsidered” report next week in Chicago.

Unlike the real IPCC, with thousands of scientists involved from around the world, the Heartland Institute’s handful of authors is paid. Several of them claim fake scientific credentials. They start with a premise of proving the overwhelming consensus on climate science wrong, whereas the real IPCC simply summarizes the best science to date on climate change.

This multi-million dollar campaign has been funded by anti-government ideologues like the Koch brothers, companies like ExxonMobil and trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute.

More recently, less visible channels of funding have been revealed such as the Donors Capital Fund and Donors Trust, organization that that has been called the “ATM of the conservative movement”, distributing funds from those who don’t want to be publicly associated with the anti-environmental work product of organizations like the Heartland Institute.

In the last week we’ve seen new peer-reviewed science published, linking at least half of 2012’s extreme weather events to a human carbon footprint in the atmosphere and on the weather and climate.

As the scientific consensus strengthens by the day that climate change is happening now, that carbon pollution is causing it and must be regulated, the denial machine is getting increasingly shrill. But today, while they are being increasingly ignored by a majority of the public, their mouthpieces in the US House of Representatives, for instance, have increased in number.

They’re still fighting the science – and they’re still being funded, to the tune of millions of dollars each year, to do it.

Dealing in Doubt sets out a history of these attacks. We show how the tactics of the tobacco industry’s campaign for “sound science” led to the formation of front groups who, as they lost the battle to deny smoking’s health hazards and keep warning labels off of cigarettes, turned their argumentative skills to the denial of climate change science in order to slow government action.

What we don’t cover is the fact that these organizations and deniers are also working on another front, attacking solutions to climate change. They go after any form of government incentive to promote renewable energy, while cheering for coal, fracking and the Keystone pipeline.

They attack any piece of legislation the US EPA puts forward to curb pollution. Decrying President Obama’s “war on coal” is a common drumbeat of these anti-regulation groups. One key member of the denial machine, astrophysicist Willie Soon from the Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics, has portrayed himself as an “expert” on mercury and public health in order to attack legislation curbing mercury emissions from coal plants.

This recent history, as well as the prior history of denial by the tobacco companies and chemical, asbestos and other manufacturing industries, is important to remember because the fossil fuel industry has never admitted that it was misguided or wrong in its early efforts to delay the policy reaction to the climate crisis. To this day, it continues to obstruct solutions.

The individuals, organizations and corporate interests who comprise the ‘climate denial machine’ have caused harm and have slowed our response time. As a result, we will all ultimately pay a much higher cost as we deal with the impacts, both economic and ecological.

Eventually, these interests will be held accountable for their actions.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce drops Yes Men lawsuit, avoids Discovery Process

9:07 am in Uncategorized by Connor Gibson

Crossposted from Greenpeace’s The Witness.

Shenanigans at the front door of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce yesterday reveal that the Chamber has dropped its lawsuit against the Yes Men, the activist duo famous for their elaborate prime-time pranks against Dow Chemical, Chevron, the World Trade Organization, and other giant entities known for putting their profit margins before people and the planet.

The Yes Men went to the Chamber yesterday morning in attempts to convince the business front group not to drop the lawsuit. Here’s some footage of the announcement and confusion over who does and doesn’t work for the Chamber:

That’s right. The Yes Men want to be sued by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to their press release:

“Just as their case against us was finally heating up again, the Chamber decided to drop it,” said former defendant Andy Bichlbaum of the Yes Men. “The Chamber knew this was our chance to challenge their silly claims and, since they claimed we had ‘damaged’ them, investigate the details of their finances through the discovery process. It’s the height of rudeness to deprive us of this great opportunity.”

“The Chamber’s lawsuit represented the only time in 17 years that anyone has been stupid enough to sue us,” said former defendant Mike Bonanno. “This was the chance of a lifetime, and we profoundly deplore the Chamber’s about-face.”

Apparently, revenge isn’t a strong enough reason for the Chamber to to cough up information on their secret financial backers or their obstruction on solving the critical issue of global climate change, the issue which sparked the original Yes Men parody press event and ensuing lawsuit.

The Chamber sued the Yes Men in 2009 for holding a press conference at the National Press Club on the Chamber’s behalf, announcing a reversal on the Chamber’s efforts to block climate change legislation. The false event was interrupted by an actual Chamber official named Eric Wohlschlegal, who told attending press, “This guy is a fake! He’s lying!” See this video:

The stunt threw the Chamber off balance as it had to clarify it would not stop obstructing national climate change policy. The following lawsuit was unprecedented for Yes Men hijinks. Even Dow Chemical didn’t sue them, despite losing $2 billion worth of stock when Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum posed as a Dow official on a live BBC interview and took responsibility for the Bhopal chemical disaster (which Dow still won’t own up to despite the death of 20,000 people).

Yes Lab has a summary of the announcement at the Chamber’s front steps in Washington, DC, including a list of questions the Yes Men wish the lawsuit’s discovery process could have answered:

Some of the things we could have asked in court had they not withdrawn their lawsuit:
  • Why does the U.S. Chamber lie even more than the American Petroleum Institute about the number of jobs created by the Keystone XL pipeline?
  • Why did the U.S. Chamber design a teaching program for US schools that favors coal over clean energy sources?
  • And who pays them to lie to children… and adults?
  • Why does the U.S. Chamber expend so much money to call into doubt the most mainstream climate science, and insult the most respected scientific bodies?
  • Why does the U.S. Chamber fight not only unions, but even just shareholder activists?
  • Why do they fight even tiny increases in the federal minimum wage?
  • Why has the U.S. Chamber’s law firm hired spies in try to discredit anti-Chamber activists?
  • And finally, why is the U.S. Chamber fighting so hard to keep corporations from having to reveal their political spending?

PolluterWatch has more on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its anti-environmental practices.