They Do Not Care: Energy Corporations Spent 100s Of Millions To Defeat Green Initiatives Across US

[hatrack]

EDIT

Though you may not know it from the cable TV coverage, this was one of the most significant – and the most terrifying – stories of the midterms. For those who actually care about the survival of the human race, the key questions now should be obvious: is there any reason to hope that we will retreat from “drill baby drill” and enact a sane set of climate policies? Or is our country – and, by extension, our species – just going to give up? Before answering, it is worth reviewing exactly what happened over these last few months, because the election illustrates how little the fossil fuel industry is willing to concede in the face of a genuine crisis. While the dominant media narrative has been about Democratic voters euphorically electing a House majority and yelling a primal scream at Donald Trump, the loudest shriek of defiance was the one bellowed by oil and gas CEOs. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that we have only 12 years to ward off an ecological disaster, those oil and gas executives’ message to Planet Earth was unequivocal: drop dead.

That message was most explicit in Colorado, where a drilling and fracking boom is happening in the middle of fast-growing suburbs. With oil and gas companies seeking to put noxious derricks and rigs near population centers, local activists backed a ballot measure called Proposition 112 that aimed to make sure new fossil fuel infrastructure is set a bit farther away from schools, hospitals, residential neighborhoods and water sources. The initiative was an angry response to a state government so awash in fossil fuel campaign cash that it has blocked legislation to merely allow regulators to prioritize the health and safety of residents when those regulators issue permits for drilling and fracking.

EDIT

In Washington State, petroleum giants funneled $25m into defeating a proposal to require polluters to pay some of the costs of the climate change havoc they are wreaking. The measure, which would have assessed a $15 fee for every ton of greenhouse gases they emit, was beaten with 56% of the vote, after the industry’s ad campaign featured criticism from a former state attorney general – who viewers weren’t told now works at Chevron’s law firm. In all, $13m of the funding against the measure came from BP – a company that simultaneously claims to unsuspecting consumers that it supports a carbon tax.

In sun-baked Arizona, you may have thought solar energy would be a fairly easy pitch. However, after the owner of the state’s major energy provider poured nearly $30m into the election, Arizonans soundly rejected a ballot initiative to force the utility to get more of its power from renewable sources. Meanwhile, in a single California county, the fossil fuel industry spent a whopping $8m to defeat a citizens’ initiative to ban new drilling and fracking.

Realizing that they may have overreached, some fossil fuel industry spokespeople are now telling lawmakers that oil and gas companies really do want to work collaboratively on environmental issues. However, their behavior in the election proved that the industry is not operating in good faith. Oil and gas CEOs showed that they will gladly accelerate the climate crisis if doing so allows them to rake in more money.

EDIT

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/15/climate-change-democrats-oil-gas

[PatrickforO]

1. OK, well, in Colorado, Proposition 112 and Amendment 74

were the energy-related ones.

Proposition 112 would have forced oil and gas to honor a 2,500 foot setback on all sides from buildings and 'other designated areas.' Studies were done using Regional Economic Modeling software (REMI) by the University of Colorado, and they found to no one's surprise that the 2,500 foot setback would have the effect of blocking almost all new drilling. To my mind, this proposition was pretty punitive, so I voted against it.

A little background before you crucify me on this thread: In 2010-2012 we had an oil-boom when it became profitable to extract crude oil from the shale beds in the Niobrara formation along Colorado's front range (the urban area east of the Rockies). When the drilling companies started coming in, the local governments, including mine, imposed further regulations on fracking, such as requiring closed loop systems (Nancy Jackson (D), Commissioner, Dist. 4, Arapahoe County), or simply declared moratoriums on fracking (deep Red Colorado Springs (El Paso County) and Douglas County (also pretty Red).

Governor Hickenlooper countered with 'cease and desist' orders to local governments maintaining the state government was perfectly capable of setting regulation on fracking operations sufficient for the safety of Coloradans. In a grandstand gesture, he drank a glass of water during a speech he claimed was fracking fluid. I called the state capitol and told his staffer that if he wanted me to believe he drank fracking fluid, then he'd go out to a 'just-been-fracked' well and slurp up some backwash.

Then, we had the disaster in Firestone, which is a little neighborhood between Longmont and Greeley in Weld County. Basically a natural gas line was leaking underground and the pocket of gas blew up, killing a young family and making a big pit where their big, newly built house sat. The NEXT DAY, the Republican controlled State Senate killed a bill that would have required oil companies to simply map those lines. You will note that as of the new legislative session beginning in January, BOTH houses of Colorado's state legislature are now Democrat-controlled.

I met a guy that owned a fracking company at a conference, and I asked him a question: "We know," I said, "that it takes around 5 million gallons of water to frack one well one time, and we know wells have to be fracked repeatedly. Since water is one of Colorado's most limited resources, are you exploring other chemicals than water?" He proceeded to give me the bullshit line about how little water oil companies actually use in relation to the total supply.

So why, you ask, did I vote AGAINST Prop. 112? Because we still use lots of oil and gas. Because most people drive internal combustion cars. Also, as an economist, I can tell you that even though the shrill warnings issued by oil & gas interests about job loss are inflated, Prop. 112 WOULD actually have cost significant job loss in direct, indirect and induced jobs. So, yes, it would have hurt the economy quite a bit - causing in my opinion more damage than it would have done good. So that's why.

Now, Excel Energy is working to decrease the total percentage of fossil fuels it uses in favor of solar and wind energy.

With GM announcing up to 20 new plug-in car models to be introduced through 2023, there is now huge opportunity for solar companies to set up sun-powered plugs for these new autos.

We also have Vestas wind turbine manufacturing in the state, and we are seeing more and more wind turbines being set up on the plains.

As all this happens, we will be reducing the need for oil to fuel power plants and internal combustion engines. But we still do use oil and we definitely use natural gas. Of course, our neighbors to the north (WY) have huge coal mines that supply power plants, as well.

But, here's the thing. The market has already spoken, no matter what the national climate-denial lobby says, virtually everyone, from manufacturing to construction to utilities, is now looking at increasing energy from renewables. The problem I see is that states need to act in conjunction with with the national government, to impose a sane energy policy - I was sick when Trump took us out of the Paris agreement - we really could be a world leader in renewable energy and conservation.

You know what would really help here? Elizabeth Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act, which would expand the fiduciary responsibility of the oil and gas (and all) CEOs of publicly held companies BEYOND mere shareholder earnings, so their responsibilities would include the welfare of workers, of consumers and the environment. Because right now, OF COURSE, any oil & gas CEO is going to lie, lobby, obfuscate and put every effort into a) cutting corners on drilling, fracking and pipeline safety, and b) lobbying fiercely at the national and state levels to deregulate.


Passing this Act would take a big swipe at the root cause of the 'war' between oil & gas and the environmental lobbies. Remove the incentive for these CEOs to lie, cheat and foul the environment, and our government will be able to work WITH the industries in question to put together a sane energy policy. It will never go away, though, because of greed. People make A LOT of money when oil wells come in, and as you all know, this makes them willing to do pretty much any gruesome, dishonest or unethical thing to keep that cash coming in. Warren's Act would help a great deal, though, because it would REQUIRE companies to take environmental costs into account instead of treating them as externalities.

As to Amendment 74, it was the real poison-pill. It would allow 'citizens' to sue the government for 'just compensation' if government regulations (read on oil and gas drilling) caused a decrease in property value. That was just stupid and it was soundly defeated.