SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
john podesta
Why Are Politicians Still Courting the Nefarious Fossil Fuel Lobby?
High-level government participation in an oil and gas industry conference shows official disdain for the public interest; it’s time to make fossil fuels politically toxic.
Apr 05, 2024
From March 18 to 22, 2024, the oil and gas industry held its major annual conference, CERAWeek, in Houston, Texas.
The conference speakers included the usual rogues’ gallery of fossil fuel CEOs from the U.S. and worldwide, including the heads of Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell, Occidental, ConocoPhillips, Saudi Aramco, and Total. These corporations have covered up their responsibility for climate change, poisoned communities, and violated human rights in collusion with repressive governments, from the U.S. to Ecuador to Uganda and beyond.
But the egregious social, environmental, and human rights record of Big Oil did not deter high-level officials from the federal government and some state governments, from both major political parties, from attending and speaking at this event, giving it a stamp of official approval and legitimacy it didn’t deserve.
Our public officials need to get the message that the fossil fuel industry is politically toxic as well as literally toxic—and that they will pay a price for associating with the industry, taking its money, and serving its agenda.
CERAWeek 2024 speakers from the federal executive branch included U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, who heads the lead energy policy agency of the U.S. government; John Podesta, senior adviser to the president for international climate policy, who will be the public face of the U.S. in international climate negotiations; and John Kerry, who held Podesta’s position until recently.
Speakers also included Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska). At least one governor, Mike Dunleavy of Alaska, was a speaker as well, as were other senior officials with the White House and the Department of Energy.
Exporting Climate Chaos
It’s bad enough that they went, but the content of some of their speeches was even worse. Senators Manchin and Sullivan criticized the modest recent step by the Biden administration to pause new export licenses for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in order to complete a new set of criteria for determining public interest.
Meanwhile, Secretary Granholm appeared to undermine her own agency’s review of the public interest test for LNG exports, by characterizing the review as a routine study (instead of an extraordinary study necessitated by the climate crisis), and saying the pause would be “in the rearview mirror” within a year. If the study has any integrity, an outcome that would end the pause and resume exports (implied by Granholm’s phrasing) should be far from assured.
On the contrary, a study aligned with the global scientific consensus, shared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency, the United Nations Environment Program, and others, would conclude that there should be no more expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure, period, and that the pause should be permanent. Granholm’s statements raise serious questions about whether the Department of Energy can be trusted to do this study.
If the U.S. were really concerned about the long-term energy security of lower income countries who import U.S. LNG, such as Bangladesh, Colombia, and Jamaica, we would be paying our fair share for climate mitigation and a just transition from fossil fuels in these countries instead of selling them our poisons.
The only real beneficiaries of LNG exports are the oil and gas industry. LNG exports are the main driver of growth in U.S. natural gas production, since domestic demand is growing only very slowly. According to government data, U.S. gas production grew about 96% between 2008 (the approximate start year of the shale gas, or “fracking,” boom) and 2023. Over the same period, U.S. gas exports grew by a whopping 690% while consumption grew by less than 40%. Clearly, the gas industry is looking at exports as their growth engine.
While industry makes its profits, communities are left to face serious climate change impacts, such as the recent Texas wildfires. Communities in the vicinity of the gas production supply chain, from fracking to pipelines to export terminals—disproportionately Indigenous, Black, brown, or low-income white communities—pay the price for industry’s profits with serious air and water pollution, as well as fire and explosion risks.
Another group harmed by LNG exports are U.S. utility consumers writ large, who face higher gas bills and become more vulnerable to price volatility as a consequence of increased exports.
What of the destination countries for U.S. LNG exports? Many of the leading importers of U.S. LNG, such as the Netherlands, U.K., France, Japan, and Germany, are affluent countries who can very well afford to transition their electric generation, home heating, and other sectors to renewables and electrification.
If the U.S. were really concerned about the long-term energy security of lower income countries who import U.S. LNG, such as Bangladesh, Colombia, and Jamaica, we would be paying our fair share for climate mitigation and a just transition from fossil fuels in these countries instead of selling them our poisons. Concern for “global energy security,” often cited as a justification for LNG exports, is a smokescreen for facilitating fossil fuel profits.
Ulterior Motives
Since LNG exports benefit no one but an irresponsible, polluting industry, why are public officials so eager to cozy up to them?
For some, the answer is obvious. Sen. Manchin (who isn’t running for reelection) received more campaign money from the fossil fuel industry in the previous election cycle than any other candidate for federal office, and owns a coal company himself. Sen. Sullivan has also received sizable campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry.
In other words, they have been bribed and have obvious conflicts of interest that motivate them to side with polluters over people.
In her comments at CERAWeek, Granholm said that “the world will need secure supplies of both traditional and new energy for the foreseeable future,” underscoring the administration’s outdated thinking on energy policy.
With executive branch officials such as Secretary Granholm and John Podesta, the motive is a little less obvious, but can be discerned regardless. Their participation in CERAWeek is certainly consistent with the Biden administration’s record, which is likely being driven by a number of powerful appointees with industry ties in key positions.
Under Biden, the Department of the Interior has issued more oil and gas drilling permits on public lands than under former President Donald Trump, including a deeply unpopular “carbon bomb” oil drilling project in Alaska. The Department of Energy has issued export licenses to a number of controversial LNG terminals in Alaska and on the Gulf Coast.
These backwards actions are being driven by flawed thinking. In her comments at CERAWeek, Granholm said that “the world will need secure supplies of both traditional and new energy for the foreseeable future,” underscoring the administration’s outdated thinking on energy policy. This is merely a restatement of the Obama administration’s infamous “all of the above” energy policy, and is in direct conflict with the global scientific consensus that we need a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels.
The Way Forward
Our public officials need to get the message that the fossil fuel industry is politically toxic as well as literally toxic—and that they will pay a price for associating with the industry, taking its money, and serving its agenda.
To do that successfully, our movements need to deepen popular understanding of the malfeasance of this industry, escalate our messaging against it, and make it clear to public officials that we are monitoring their ties with the industry closely. Cutting the ties between fossil fuels and the government will be immensely helpful in shifting U.S. government policy on climate and energy in a positive direction.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Podesta Tapped to Replace Kerry as Biden's Top Climate Official
"Podesta needs to take the baton from Kerry and lead the U.S. on a furious sprint to end oil and gas expansion while we still have time to prevent the worst climate catastrophes," said one campaigner.
Jan 31, 2024
Senior White House adviser John Podesta has been tapped to replace outgoing U.S. climate envoy John Kerry, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
According to the Post, Podesta—who is currently in charge of implementing the climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act—will have the title of "senior adviser to the president for international climate policy" and will work out of the White House instead of the State Department, where Kerry was based.
"We need to keep meeting the gravity of this moment, and there is no one better than John Podesta to make sure we do," White House chief of staff Jeff Zients said in a statement. "John has—and will continue to be—at the helm of driving the implementation of the most significant climate law in history."
NBC Newsreported that Kerry—a former secretary of state and the 2004 Democratic nominee for president—will shift to supporting President Joe Biden's reelection campaign.
In a statement, Center for Biological Diversity’s Energy Justice program director Jean Su underscored the imperative of building on the limited yet important climate progress achieved by the Biden administration.
"The recent pause on gas exports has positioned Podesta to lead the fossil fuel phaseout and the clean energy expansion we desperately need," Su said. "In his final act as climate envoy, John Kerry agreed to a global transition away from fossil fuels and urged a far more ambitious scale and timeline."
"Podesta needs to take the baton from Kerry and lead the U.S. on a furious sprint to end oil and gas expansion while we still have time to prevent the worst climate catastrophes," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Clinton Fan Manufactured Fake News That MSNBC Personalities Spread to Discredit WikiLeaks Docs
The phrase "Fake News" has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to other malleable political labels such as "terrorism" and "hate speech": because it lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most important fact to realize about this new term: those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
Dec 09, 2016
The phrase "Fake News" has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to other malleable political labels such as "terrorism" and "hate speech": because it lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most important fact to realize about this new term: those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
One of the most egregious examples was the recent Washington Post article hyping a new anonymous group and its disgusting blacklist of supposedly pro-Russia news outlets - a shameful article mindlessly spread by countless journalists who love to decry Fake News, despite the Post article itself being centrally based on Fake News. (The Post this week finally added a lame editor's note acknowledging these critiques, which absurdly claimed that it did not mean to "vouch for the validity" of the blacklist even though the article's key claims were based on doing exactly that).
Now we have an even more compelling example. Back in October, when WikiLeaks was releasing emails from the John Podesta archive, Clinton campaign officials and their media spokespeople adopted a strategy of outright lying to the public, claiming - with no basis whatsoever - that the emails were doctored or fabricated and thus should be ignored. That lie - and that is what it was: a claim made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth - was most aggressively amplified by MSNBC personalities such as Joy Ann Reid and Malcolm Nance, The Atlantic's David Frum, and Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald.
\u201cClinton camp chief strategist @benensonj: "I've seen things" in Wikileaks emails "that aren't authentic" #ThisWeek https://t.co/LPQJBfACqz\u201d— This Week (@This Week) 1477229422
That the emails in the Wikileaks archive were doctored or faked - and thus should be disregarded - was classic Fake News, spread not by Macedonian teenagers or Kremlin operatives but by established news outlets such as MSNBC, the Atlantic and Newsweek. And, by design, this Fake News spread like wildfire all over the internet, hungrily clicked and shared by tens of thousands of people eager to believe it was true. As a result of this deliberate disinformation campaign, anyone reporting on the contents of the emails was instantly met with claims that the documents in the archive had been proven fake.
The most damaging such claim came from MSNBC's intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance. As I documented on October 11, he tweeted what he - for some bizarre reason - labeled an "Official Warning." It decreed: "#PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done." That tweet was re-tweeted by more than 4,000 people. It was vested with added credibility by Clinton-supporting journalists like Reid and Frum ("expert to take seriously").
All of that, in turn, led to an article in something called "The Daily News Bin" with the headline: "MSNBC intelligence expert: WikiLeaks is releasing falsified emails not really from Hillary Clinton." This classic fake news product - citing Nance and Reid among others - was shared more than 40,000 times on Facebook alone.
From the start, it was obvious that it was this accusation from Clinton supporters - not the WikiLeaks documents - that was a complete fraud, perpetrated on the public as deliberate disinformation. With regard to the claim about the Podesta emails, now we know exactly who created it in the first instance: a hard-core Clinton fanatic.
When Nance - MSNBC's "intelligence analyst" - issued his "Official Warning," he linked to a tweet that warned: "Please be skeptical of alleged #PodestaEmails. Trumpists are dirtying docs." That tweet, in turn, linked to a tweet from an anonymous account calling itself "The Omnivore," which had posted an obviously fake transcript purporting to be a Hillary Clinton speech to Goldman Sachs. Even though that fake document was never published by WikiLeaks, that was the entire basis for the MSNBC-inspired claim that some of the WikiLeaks documents were doctored.
Read the full article, with possible updates, at The Intercept.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular