Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNew Report Shows Explosive Growth in Climate Change Lobby
The number of lobbyists seeking to
influence federal policy on climate change has grown more than 300
percent in five years, according to a new report by the Center for
Public Integrity.
Among the report's findings: More than 770 companies and organizations hired 2,340 lobbyists to work on climate change and spent at least $90 million lobbying in 2008. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity - which includes St. Louis companies Ameren, Peabody Energy, and Arch Coal - topped the list of those focused solely on the issue, spending $9.95 million.
* Finance, insurance, and investment firms had as many lobbyists - about 130 - as alternative energy firms last year.
* Despite the huge growth in the number of environmental, health and energy lobbyists, they are outnumbered by industry and other interests 8 to 1.
The report, The Climate Change Lobby, includes a searchable database of climate lobbyists. Using disclosure reports, the database reveals how much lobbyists were paid each year by their clients.
The database shows former Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt was paid $120,000 per quarter of 2008 by Peabody. Ameren is also listed as one of Gephardt's clients.
In addition to Gephardt, the report lists former Senator John Breaux of Louisiana and former Congressman Robert Livingston of Louisiana among the "power players" of the climate change lobby.
"This new Center for Public Integrity report shows clearly how much money is pouring into Washington on the issue of climate change," said Center Director Bill Buzenberg. "What's also clear is how difficult it will be for the Obama Administration to get meaningful climate change legislation through in face of such an enormous lobbying push by so many special interests."
Do you think the Obama administration will enact climate change legislation during his tenure? Should "clean coal" play a role in our energy future?
41 Comments so far
Show All"New Report Shows Explosive Growth in Climate Change Lobby"
Welcome Climate Change Lobby to Common Dreams.
Please realize that this is a progressive site. As such, we are better informed than you might think. We won't be swayed by obscure or bogus industry statistics or reduced to name calling. That's for the sheeple and reactionaries who don't visit this site much.
Unlike yourselves, we don't get paid for posting here. We do it for free because we have known and from recent experience realize that you will do anything and say anything for Mammon regardless of how many die or what damage it causes to our only home, planet earth.
Regardless, I am glad to see you on CD. Stick around, you might learn a few things.
oil and coal may be used to create wind and solar power plants but oil and coal aren't needed for their operation after they are running to keep them running.
Finally Common Dreams is realizing that climate change is a lie & brought to you courtesy of the profiteers and the corporations wanting to cash in on the dumbed down global sheep by stealing more of their money through a global tax. Oh by the way I live in an area which has polar bears and believe it or not they do swim and believe it or not they can swim for hours and always could this is how they catch food and cross to areas which have better food supplies and yes they even climb up onto sheets of ice to rest.
Wow sheets of ice the sky is falling pay me money to save you, we can't wait until morning because the sun spots and solar flares are at their lowest levels in hundreds of years and the suckers I mean the people are going to realize, IT'S ONE OF THE COLDEST WINTERS IN A CENTURY! So the media has to play up wild fires in an area known for wild fires because Australia is warm and hot! Geez......
Yeah, I live in Canada too.
And the polar bear is endangered because they are starving. The ice is getting weaker and thinner, meaning larger gaps for the bears to swim. Yes, they can swim for hours. Not days.
Many bears are being found washed up on shore, dead of drowning due to exhaustion. Many more are starving to death, or resorting to cannibalism.
The town of Churchill, Manitoba has had a worse and longer bear problem because Churchill is the only reliable source of food for the local polar bear population!
The reason this has been a remarkable winter is because so much water evaporated from the oceans due to the increase in ocean temperature. That means more water vapor available to form clouds and fall as snow, making for a more typical winter like the ones I clearly remember as a child. The warm mild winters of the past ten years have been an anomaly, that we grew to accept as normal. This is elementary school science my daughter understands!
As for the fires in Australia, the reason they are so bad this time is because Australia has been under drought conditions with little or no water for almost TEN YEARS! I know, because my lady's father LIVES in Australia, and she talks to him once a week. They are not only having fires in the south where the drought is, by flooding in the north of Australia because the rain is simply running off the stone hard sunbaked ground.
Please, if you are going to present points for discussion, at least do *some* basic research.
Walk in peace.
Your half-true comments about polar bears notwithstanding, it may be a cold winter up there, yes, but it is the average July temperature that affects ice-melt in the northern seas the most, which affects sunlight reflection, which affects sea temperature, and on and on. The climate is a complex sytem of trillions of variables, so climate change means just that... not simply warming. Drought in some areas, floods in others, hot summers, freezing winters. When you pull one string in this huge ball of yarn, you have no idea where the end of that string pulls next.
A. The article is from a a St.Louis newpaper not Common Dreams
B. The article points out that the growing lobby which is against action dealing with Global Climate change is 8 to 1 ...in other words the growing lobby is anti- protecting the environment
C. Nothing in the article or any post says anything about polar bears except for your post and now mine
D. Your last sentence/paragragh makes no sense
E. I would like to think you someone high up in the anti-global change movement and hope you continue to post.
Wow. Simply wow. I still can't quite wrap my head around the climate change conspiracy theory. So Freedom742, your saying that the thousands and thousands of scientists studying the effects of climate change are, in fact, lying? That its all made up. Or that climate change is happening, but not because of human actions?
I really can't fathom how such thoughts actually make sense, except for a very selective reading of the information. Please help me understand why weather patterns are changing around the world, storms are more intense, the see level is rising, glaciers and ice caps are melting, spring comes sooner, winter comes later. Please explain this, the most massive conspiracy theory of all conspiracy theories! I would like to know how its being done.
Sigh.
Another who gets their information from Limbaugh and Singer.
Please substantiate your claims with links to website that provides this analysis. It is so much fun debunking the bad science behind denialists myths.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
peacekeepertwo I believe some kind of legislation will Pass, dealing with the Issue of Climate change. We have to let Congress know what we want that Bill to like. we need to make it clear that we don't Believe their will ever be a way to provide Electricity from "Clean Coal", in way that will not Damage the envirnment.
peacekeepertwo I believe some kind of legislation will Pass, dealing with the Issue of Climate change. We have to let Congress know what we want that Bill to like. we need to make it clear that we don't Believe their will ever be a way to provide Electricity from "Clean Coal", in way that will not Damage the envirnment.
Yes i will agree with obama decisions.
Well that's nice...Care to elaborate?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Clean Coal ? http://www.wisecountyissues.com Appalachia is being bombed, blasted and bulldozed right into 3rd world America.
Yah, St. Louis has some real winners with Ameren, Peabody, and Arch Coal. Dont forget about Monsanto, it's there too. The elites run the show in the St. Louis business and cultural community. It's almost as if it's a small town. With reactionary thinking supporting "clean coal" in St. Louis, it will likely suffer relative to more progressive and creative cities. Oh well, the sewer system is caving in left and right near the new stadiums and glass skyscrapers. Who knows, the town may get physically swallowed up by the sewers.
I was dismayed last nite by Obama's speech. He used the "cap" word as in "cap and trade". Cap and trade is a lobbyist's dream.
Some of us advocate nuclear (like me), some advocate clean coal, some wind and solar. If we impose a carbon tax with no exemptions the market place will sort it out. If it is stiff enough, the market place will sort it out rather promptly.
The only viable scheme for a carbon tax that can be set high enough to seriously reduce our CO2 emmissions that I have seen is Jim Hansen's "Carbon Tax and Dividend". Without the 100% rebate of his proposal, an appropriate tax level would collapse our economy.
Bill
U.S. Citizen
I agree with PaiaGirl. There is no such thing as clean coal; clean coal is an oxymoron. And nuclear energy is costly and will create its own environmental problems. Neither of these sources should be expanded and they should be phased out.
We need an in depth study by scientists and other experts to create a comprehensive plan to decide on the best sources of alternative energy from an environmental perspective. These studies probably exist already.
The industries, including their lobbyists, that will profit from participation should not be involved in the first phase. Once a plan is developed, then the industries involved can present their plans for manufacture and related costs.
The elites damaging/destroying societies and the biosphere for profit is not enough. They must also profit from the repair of the damage/destruction. Given the elites' singular imperative to perpetually grow an economy for their private benefit we see they have no incentive to reduce the damage/destruction but instead an incentive to grow it. The elites in the USA are demonstrating no moral or logical constraints. Given that not even a small volume of elite activity serves the society's better interests, it is reasonable to fully dismantle the elite establishment. The way to accomplish this starts with training the people to shift all of our exchange/association away from the power centers (elite establishment) and toward our local communities (local small farmers, craftsmen, merchants) to give the political/economic power back to the people. Only the PEOPLE can build healthy societies and sustainable economies. The elites CANNOT.
Can you name the lobbyists posting on CD?
Why would they deign to do that? They already have the ear and the wallet of those they need, our elected officials. They care little for we the people.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Just to put things into context, there are 18,000 lobbyists working in DC alone.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
And how many of these lobbyists represent firms that have hoovered up multiple billions in federal bailout money, yet refuse to do anything that will help address the effects of the impending multiple disasters global climate change WILL produce?
Just something to consider...
Walk in peace.
Although the myth of "clean coal" encourages the use of coal and subsequent CO2 buildup, I fear that the push to reverse climate change via lowered CO2 emissions will result in more nuclear power plants which also have unacceptable environmental effects that last 250,000 years.
Corporations stand to make a lot of money off of nuclear power.
The more responsible (and also economical) solution of decentralized wind and solar, reduced transportation distances of goods (local production), conservation and sensible community design don't offer as many opportunities for corporations to rip us off.
True, but like off-shore drilling, if we started building nuke power plants today, the first new nuke plant would not contribute to the grid for 10 years.
We simply cannot wait that long.
I'm with you. A huge national push, much like the space program of the 1960s, to build solar and wind farms, will start contributing to the grid within 12 months, with the power output gradually increasing to reach its power target within 10 years, about the same time that the first new nuke or new oil well generates its first watt.
So whats the problem? Oh, I forgot: Congress and Special Interest Groups. They both are so tight it is nearly impossible to tell them apart.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
Ok...here we go again...
What do you use to power the machines that you use to extract and process the raw materials to make the solar/panel/wind turbine/ ZPG? How do you move the finished product into place and string the power lines?
The neat thing is that most of the oil and coal companies knew that they would start running out of the requisite resources to power modern technological civilization, and made plans accordingly.
Why do you think the economic collapse is happening now, right as oil and coal have peaked production?
Walk in peace.
Huh?
Dude, no one suggested we turn off coal and oil tomorrow! Where did you get such an idiotic idea?
Anyone who has been following this proposal knows it is a phased approach. Rephrasing one of Dubya's sayings, "As alternative energy steps up, fossil fuel energy can step down".
Having said all of that, it is folly to assume that oil and coal will completely disappear. Certainly in remote regions and developing nations, it will be a very long time (if ever) before sufficient infrastructure exists that reliance on oil and coal will diminish to zero. Oil will always be needed for air travel. Certainly in emergency situations, oil (and to a significantly lesser extent, coal) is irreplaceable. An example would be a major disaster occurs in an area where all communications are cut off. Helicopters can easily fly in 10,000 watt diesel generators for critical medical care and command-and-control centers. This cannot be accomplished with batteries or alternative energy generators.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
You're making an invalid comparison.
The money spent to build the wind- and solar-power infrastructures is not analogous to that spent on a continuous basis to extract and ship fossil fuels. It would be comparable to that spent to manufacture and deliver the equipment used to extract fossil fuels.
Although establishing the alternative infrastructures would indeed entail significant up-front costs, the operating expenses would be far less than what we're spending on extracting and shipping coal.
q
I am not talking about *money*. I am talking about *energy*. What powers the machines that extract and process the raw materials to make the alternative energy systems.
Walk in peace.
Ok...here we go again...
You use electricity to power the machines that you use to extract and process the raw materials to make solar panels and wind turbines. You use electricity to move the finished product into place and string the power lines.
You remind me of the guy I heard on the radio who made a comment that no battery could ever move an 18-wheeler. (That might be true, but don't be overly focused on batteries.) He evidently had never heard of trains that run on electricity and move loads many times bigger than any 18-wheeler could ever move. Unfortunately, the web of tracks that once existed has all but vanished so few realize how extensive they really were. Had transportation been left to the invisible hand of the free market (It almost makes me sick to use that phrase, but ) cars and trucks running on gas would not be around today.
Today, on NPR, I heard an interview with a start up in LA that is producing 18 wheelers running on electricity not diesel....1 so far....
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
One more time...slowly:
Where do you get the electricity to power the machines that extract and process the raw materials? It has to come from a powerplant, one of four types: Coal, nuclear, natural gas, or hydro-electric dam. All of which are dependant to some degree on fossil fuels for their basic creation and operation.
As for powering an 18 wheel transport truck with batteries, yes, it can be done.
But the batteries comprise much of the mass of the truck, leading to higher ground pressures and friction the electric motors must overcome, leading to less efficiency and drasticly reduced range, so as to not be economically viable. Electric trains have low ground pressure, and are run off an electrical grid system supplied and subsidised by the counrty it's in, hence they are more economically viable to build. But they still have to have a powerplant suppplying the electricity, and we are back to the start of the argument.
Walk in peace.
Solar cells exist too. Even solar balloons.
Wind farms and other sources of electricty do exist! Yes, they really do exist!!!!
No argument. They do.
But they take energy to produce, and raw materials.
And that energy has to come from somewhere to extract and process the raw materials to make the windmills and solar panels...
Walk in peace.
Excuse me if I ask a dumb question...but your posts seem to me to be paeons to the status quo. Unless Ive completely missed your point ( not an uncommon phenomenon) you are dismissing the advent of new technologies because we need old ones to create them....
We are running out of coal and oil, nuclear may eventually solve its serious problems and be a viable source of needed energy, but, as we see not only diminishing supplies, harmful side affects, including wars to capture those shrinking supplies, what alternatives are you proposing to replace them?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
The point Galenwainwright is trying to make (from what I've read) is that the current system is predicated on large inputs of fossil fuels. For example, all the metal that is mined to create solar panels, trucks, cars, power lines, wind turbines, etc. relies on mining machinery that runs on oil. In order to process the ore, that also takes large amounts of fossil fuels, by way of electricity or oil. So in order to build a large infrastructure of alternative energy production would require the whole chain of production of mining, refining, manufacturing, transportation, construction, etc. to switch from fossil fuels to something else (electricity, hydrogen, whatever)
The underlying issue is it will take a huge investment, not only in power generation technology, to wean ourselves off of polluting and global warming inducing sources of energy. All of which will mean more emissions up front, in order to reduce emissions in the long run.
The thing is though, the time frame in which to act is getting shorter by the day. We need drastic cuts in C02 in the next decade or so to avert the worst of what will result. The bottom line is that there really isn't enough time to convert all the industries over to electricity, or other fuel sources, while at the same time building huge amounts of new electricity production. Especially not with all the obfuscation of the issue by corporate interests intent on keeping things the same.
I appreciate the information and it is as I thought it was. But what alternative is there, it seems to me that asking people to conserve and alter lifestyles may be necessary but I doubt it is going to sink in without a catastrophe.
Much of the electric grid is in place and requires little new expenditure, and that which we need to convert to cleaner technologies seems well spent considering the other end of the deal, when we are running cleaner. Certainly we will use oil and coal for some time to come, but seeming to take the stance that we shouldnt turn to wind, solar, geothermal and whatever science brings us in future seems not to be a rational way to deal with the issue.
What is the alternative, sitting back and awaiting catastrophe?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Given a large national/international incentive, the time required to construct the infrastructure necessary to *mostly* replace oil/coal with alternative energy sources is 10-20 years. See my post above as to why we can never completely eliminate oil and coal as energy sources.
Using a back-of-the-envelope calculation, such a major effort would increase annual green-house gas emissions by 1-2%. In effect, this is insignificant.
I estimate that if we started today, yes, we would see a slight increase in green-house gasses for 1-10 years, but as the alternative energy sources come on-line, coal plants could be shut down, and we would start having a viable culture based on non-fossil fuels. I estimate the break-even point would be in 5-10 years. After that, our emissions would decrease, and certainly by 10-15 years, would be considerably less than today's emissions.
The big question is: what is the alternative? Galenwainwright appears to suggest staying the course, which is unacceptable. Short of major societal revolution in the next 10 years where every westerner somehow significantly reduces their carbon footprint, we HAVE to rebuild our energy infrastructure.
As every investor knows, "ya gotta spend money to make money". We have to pollute at first in order to reduce pollution.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
We are already past the tipping point of 350 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. We are closer to 385 ppm already. 1% - 2% more CO2 over 1 - 10 years will only add to the promlems we are already seeing. And we are are well past the timetable to cut back our carbon emissions as posited by both the Kyoto and Rio Accords.
The hard evidence is pointing to a 6 degree C change in the global temperature in the next century, possibly much sooner, because we have entered a positive feedback loop, which is causing drying conditions to kill forests, spreading desertification, killing coral polyps which lock carbon into the struture of ocean reefs, and causing the melting of the Permafrost, which could very likely result in a massive methane 'fart' that wipes out most of the life in the upper latitudes of the Norther Hemisphere.
It is for these reasons, backed by a growing amount of hard evidence, that the more vocal scientists in the global climate change groups are promoting the idea of immediate abandoning much of the technology we presently use.
Walk in peace.
"We are already past the tipping point of 350 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. We are closer to 385 ppm already. 1% - 2% more CO2 over 1 - 10 years will only add to the promlems we are already seeing. And we are are well past the timetable to cut back our carbon emissions as posited by both the Kyoto and Rio Accords."
This is pretty much my understandin too. Except I think we may have reached close to 388 ppm.
"The hard evidence is pointing to a 6 degree C change in the global temperature in the next century, possibly much sooner, because we have entered a positive feedback loop, which is causing drying conditions to kill forests, spreading desertification, killing coral polyps which lock carbon into the struture of ocean reefs, and causing the melting of the Permafrost, which could very likely result in a massive methane 'fart' that wipes out most of the life in the upper latitudes of the Norther Hemisphere."
This may well come to pass. I pray it doesn't.
Yes, the first step we all can take is to cut down on our use of energy. My wife has lived the last almost 50 years without light bulbs. She is blind. She does all kinds of things in the dark. If she can, why can't I. It's been a long time since we bought a light bulb for the house and we probably will never buy another light bulb for the house. (Our car does have headlights.) Do people really need hot water? Do people really need clothes dryers or hair dryers?
But, I still think we need to make an investment in solar and wind energy.
*stunned*
Someone *actually* understood what I have been trying to get across.
THANK YOU. A very heartfelt THANK YOU!
May the gods bless you for the rest of your life.
Walk in peace.
As unfortunate, inconvenient, and terrible as the obvious consequences might be, I have to agree with Galen on at least this point; the very nature of the beast is that we simply cannot continue to do what we are doing now.
The burning of fossil fuels must cease, and nearly immediately, if the populations of the planet are to avert the greatest of the cataclysmic effects of climate change. I suppose phasing is a remote possibility, but what with the forces at work in the lobbying of private interests, the deeply-rooted dirty power ifrastructure, and the current tendancy for the common man to slowly saunter through any realm of serious thought (much less consideration of communal, national, or globally reinforced lifestyle change), it is unlikely that we will find any success in attempting to compromise with the very blight that has brought us here.
Though it seems so unacceptably difficult to so many that are, like petulant children, deeply emotionally and psychologically tied to their abilities to flip switches for nightlights or turn a key to go wherever they want, the glaring reality is that the most beneficial solution, globally, does without these things, at least in the short term. Lamely put, I think we might want to jump of the horse before she prances into the pyre.