The Give and Take of Washington: If You Can't Take It, Then Don't Give It…

In a press release last week, Greenpeace announced the launch of PolluterHarmony. The parody website, created through Greenpeace's PolluterWatch, seeks to match "lobbyists. CEO's, and propagandists" with easy and willing public officials to help ease the path to buying and selling influence and "sabotage our clean energy future without ever leaving the house."  The site is a spoof on the popular matchmaking site eHarmony.

The parody site claims (in jest) it is  "the #1 matchmaking site for polluters, industry lobbyists, & politicians!" with a video of man explaining how he is a corporate lobbyist in the throws of new love with a woman named "Lisa" (read Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski). The man, at one point almost in tears because the new relationship makes him so emotional, tells the viewers that his time with Lisa has "…been just magical." The video shows scenes of romantic nights gutting clean energy bills, juxtaposed with the man and "Lisa" strolling hand-in-hand through the damp streets of Washington.

Murkowski is seeking to stop the EPA's endangerment finding that CO2 emissions pose a threat to human health and welfare. It has been widely reported that Murkowski's proposed amendment to block EPA regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act had a lot of help from energy lobbyists.

Last week it was also reported by Greenwire and the New York Times that oil and gas lobbyists spent a record $154 million (at least) in 2009 to shape and influence climate and energy policy, up 16 percent from the $132 million spent in 2008. The electric utility industry spent $134.7 million in 2009, for a combined total of $288.7 million  - more than a quarter-billion dollars – to peddle influence. That's almost ten times the $29 million alternative energy interests spend on their lobbying efforts (not including the $21.3 million spend on lobbying by environmental organizations).

In addition to the PolluterHarmony website, faith-based and environmental activists last week launched a series of radio ads targeting eight key senators when Murkowski's amendment, characterized as "The Dirty Air Act", comes to a vote. Other environmental advocacy groups said last week they plan on putting up billboards critical of Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, one of the three moderate Democrats that have signaled support for Murkowski's proposal.

Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon "condemned" the opposition to his boss, saying that "This type of personal attack is highly offensive and clearly crosses the line."

This is a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington," Dillon said. "Too often outside groups go for the personal attack when they can't win on the merits. Rather than have a legitimate debate about the policy, they launch a smear campaign."

One might wonder where Dillon has been up until now in this debate, with the constant barrage of mocking and character assassination against proponents of clean energy and climate action the rule of the day for years, on full display last week during the harsh winter weather in, well, winter, and practically a matter of executive fiat under the Bush administration.

What crosses the line is Senator Murkowski's blatant attempt to gut the Clean Air Act in order to satisfy her dirty industry lobbyist backers," said PolluterWatch director Kert Davies.  "If she objects to the scrutiny her conduct has received, she should consider putting her constituents ahead of Washington lobbyists," Davies said. "Until then, we will continue to hold her accountable for her close ties to influence peddlers like Jeffrey Holmstead."

Additional source and further reading:
Huffington Post
New York Times

Both bills contain a market-based mechanism to regulate emissions. The proposed bills offer an expedient means of reigning in carbon emissions on a national scale. These programs offer incentives and disincentives while letting the market do the difficult work of setting the price for CO2. Market-based mechanisms like cap-and-trade are functioning well around the world. We also have reason to believe that cap-and-trade will spur long-term job creation.

Despite fears about the costs of cap-and-trade, there are significant costs associated with a business as usual approach to climate change. In the final analysis, environmental costs must be understood as economic costs.

President Obama and the Democrats have failed to effectively communicate these facts to the American public. Part of that failure is attributable to massive misinformation campaigns from powerful economic and political interests. Americans are being swayed by these efforts as revealed by polls which show that an increasing number of Americans are questioning the existence of climate change.

Last year, President Obama took steps to impose reform by limiting campaign funding from corporations and unions. However, the President's efforts to address these problems were recently struck down by the Supreme Court. Corporations are now free to spend unlimited sums of money with the intent of influencing electoral outcomes. For evidence, one need look no further than the recent election of Republican Senator Scott Brown.

The implications for the green agenda are considerable. The massive exposure provided by unlimited funding can be very persuasive. When opposing interests are free to influence the electorate, financing takes precedence over ideas and scare tactics triumph over rational debate.
Election-year politics and growing estimates of stimulus spending will further complicate the passage of a climate change bill.

Although 2009 began with great promise, in 2010 we are forced to concede that deceit is clouding legislative efforts and the electorate is being swayed by misinformation. If key climate legislation is defeated, efforts to manage climate change will languish.

The Obama administration is attempting to regulate US carbon emissions, but progress is being stymied by the entrenched interests of the old carbon based economy.

___________________________________________

Richard Matthews is a consultant, eco-entrepreneur, sustainable investor and writer. He is the owner of THE GREEN MARKET, one of the Web’s most comprehensive resources for information and tools on sustainability. He is also the author of numerous articles on sustainable positioning, green investing, enviro-politics and eco-economics.

The industry groups challenging the EPA finding, which include coal giant Massey Energy and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, have yet to specify their concerns, but Patrick Day, and attorney with Holland & Hart LLP, the law firm representing the companies involved in the motion, say they intend on challenging the scientific foundation of the EPA finding.

We're certainly going to challenge the adequacy of the administrator's ruling on the science, and we think there are probably procedural issues with the science, as well," Day said.

The endangerment finding sets the stage for future EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulation is also drawing fire from Congress, most notably from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski (as has been widely reported of late.)

The states filing the motion last Friday support limits on greenhouse gas emissions, and they are asking the federal court to grant the states formal "intervenor status" in the case on the side of the EPA.

Along with the coalition of states and NYC, several environmental groups are also seeking to intervene, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation.

Given that the agency went through an exhaustive review of the science, given what we know about the peer-reviewed science, it seems to be a last-ditch effort by polluters who want to deny that we have a problem," said Global Joe Mendelson, global warming policy director for the National Wildlife Federation, adding that the industry challenge to the EPA endangerment finding was a desperate attempt from big polluters to overthrow the science of climate change.

The states involved in the filing last Friday are mostly those that successfully argued Massachusetts v. EPA before the supreme court in 2007, a landmark case that found the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The motion just filed argues that the states have the right to intervene in the EPA case because that are directly effected by the industry challenge to the agency's endangerment finding. Those effects include rising sea levels in Massachusetts, threatened hardwood forests (that in turn impacting tourism), and higher temperature exacerbating ozone pollution and leading to increased respiratory problems.

Along with New York City, the petitioner states include California, Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Rhode Island.

Sources and further reading:
The Hill
Greenwire (sub. required)
UnEarthed (Earth Justice)

States' Petition in Federal Court (pdf)