Dozen wavering Democrats hold key to fate of crucial climate change bill

2,500 lobbyists, $45m on PR – but just 12 views could make or break global carbon deal

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 May 2009 23.09 BST

It is one of the few visible growth ­industries of the recession: the lobbying and PR offensive aimed at influencing how, when and even whether Barack Obama moves America towards a new low ­carbon economy.
The battle for control over that ­generational shift is being waged as fiercely in the committee rooms of ­Congress – where the crucial climate change and energy law will be written – as in the heartland states where the changes will be felt the most.
Turn on the radio in a blighted town in America's rust belt, and a new ­advertisement paid for by a lobbying group with close ties to oil industry giants claims that ordinary families could be worse off by thousands of ­dollars if Congress passes the draft ­global warming law, which sets a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and makes polluters pay. "Some in Congress are now pushing an energy tax that would be the largest hike in history," it threatens. "This tax will further cripple our already struggling economy."
Surf the cable news channels and an advert paid for by Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection claims the opposite. "I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of the big oil companies always bellyaching that we can't afford clean energy," says a grizzled old man in a faded checked work shirt.
The outcome of the PR wars is seen as critical not just to Obama's promise of building a clean energy future, but to the prospects of agreeing a global climate change treaty at UN talks in Copenhagen later this year. International negotiators have bluntly told US diplomats there is little prospect of a deal to avert dangerous global warming unless Congress makes serious progress on energy legislation.
That means passage in the house, if not the Senate, by the end of this year.
So there are no punches being pulled in the fight over the legislation – even in the throes of a recession. "There is a war of perception happening," said John Larsen of the World Resources Institute. "The facts almost don't matter. If I think this bill is going to bring a significant increase in my taxes I am going to let my congressman know and there is going to be a backlash."
He added: "I've never seen this much media spending on a bill that is only in the subcommittee."
The PR drive has already forced the Democrats to scale back their plans for climate change legislation. The White House this week embarked on health reform, prompting speculation Obama could shift focus from climate if Congress does not reach a deal this week.
Sources said Henry Waxman, the California congressman steering the bill through Congress, reached a partial deal on Monday night. There were also reports that the compromise would severely undermine US efforts to move away from coal and oil and cap carbon emissions in the short term.
Obama has thrown himself into the PR wars recently. He invited pivotal members of Congress to the White House last week amid signs of rebellion against the bill. A leading conservative Democrat said he would not vote for a climate change law under any circumstances. "This thing is out of control," said ­Collin Peterson, who heads the agriculture committee. "I've had it."
Lobbying on climate change was already a growth industry when Obama was elected. The number of climate change lobbyists in Washington rose to 2,430 last year – an increase of 300% over the previous five years – which works out to about four lobbyists for every member of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Centre for Public Integrity.
But since Obama came to the White House in January, the oil, gas and coal industry has increased its lobbying budget by 50%, spending $44.5m (£30m) in the first three months of this year to try to influence legislation, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics, which monitors the influence of money on Washington politics.
Leading the big spenders for 2009 was Exxon Mobil, which bumped up its spending on lobbyists in the first three months of this year to $9.2m, from $6.6m for the same period in 2008.
Other oil firms ramped up their spending even more, according to research by DeSmog blog. Chevron Corp more than doubled its outlay on lobbyists, spending $6.8m this quarter. Conoco Phillips also doubled its lobbying budget to $6m. BP spent $3.6m. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a mining operators' group, has said it will spend $45m this year on advertising and PR. Electricity companies have also ramped up their spending, as have coal mining operators. Southern Company, which operates in Alabama, Georgia, Florida and ­Mississippi, has spent $3.6m on ­lobbying this year.
The battle for influence kicked up another gear last month with the introduction of a 648-page discussion draft bill – the American clean energy and security act – to the House of Representatives. It has escalated each week since then, with oil, gas, coal and electricity firms splashing out more on advertising to try to block the reforms or remake them to favour industry.
The draft proposal sets out a timetable for cutting America's greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 80% below 2005 levels by the middle of the century.
It would require power companies to get 25% of their electricity from clean sources such as wind and solar by 2025, and would require less polluting vehicle fuels. It also envisages a support fund for industries that would have the hardest time converting to the new regime.
Because of the new constellation of powers in Washington – with Obama in the White House and Democrats in control of Congress – it is the first climate bill ever to have a realistic chance of becoming law. The draft has also been crafted with a view to winning over industry as well as environmentalists, further improving its prospects.
It has a powerful lineup of supporters: environmental and liberal organisations as well as major corporations that support energy reform, even some religious organisations, are pushing back hard, launching new adverts on TV, in print, on the web, and even on subway platforms almost daily.
They too have hired lobbyists and PR firms. But Michael Oko, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), says they cannot compete with the fossil fuel industry. "Whatever we have to spend is such a small amount when you compare it to the deep pockets of big oil and other big energy companies," he said.
The Environmental Defence Action Fund spent $300,000 on lobbyists in the first three months of this year, and the US Climate Action Partnership, a consortium of major corporations such as DuPont and environmental groups, spent $250,000. NRDC spent $148,400, according to data from the Centre for Responsive Politics.
The Nature Conservancy, by far the biggest spender on lobbying among environment groups, spent $850,000.
Unlike the past battles over the science of climate change and the role of human activity, the core of the arguments on both sides is now economic.
The industry giants argue that putting a price on carbon will be ruinous for the average American family, and plunge the country deeper into recession.
"[Lawmakers] are literally rewriting the ground rules about what types of energy they want us to use," said Thomas Pyle, the president of the lobbying firm American Energy Alliance (AEA).
The AEA has close ties with the oil industry. Pyle was once a lobbyist for Koch Industries, a privately owned firm which started in the oil refining business. He also worked for the Institute for Energy Research, a thinktank that has been funded by Exxon, Brown and Root, and trusts set up by Koch before spinning off the AEA.
Environmental groups accuse Pyle of recycling long-refuted studies about costs to industry of climate legislation.
In the last fortnight, the two sides have redirected their PR offensive from the general public to the districts held by about a dozen Democrats, mainly from conservative heartland states, who hold the swing vote on the House of Representatives energy subcommittee.
AEA has produced radio adverts airing in the home turf of 10 of the key representatives. "There had been a macro-level campaign, trying to go out and change hearts and minds," said Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group. "Now we are seeing it at micro level, targeted at individual members and going into specific districts."
The Democrats in the spotlight include some from conservative regions, some from coal-producing areas in Virginia and Pennsylvania, or oil-rich states such as Texas, as well as those from the now ailing manufacturing heartlands such as Ohio and Indiana, where people are becoming increasingly worried about rising electricity costs and possible job losses.
Republicans do not enter the political calculus because of their broad policy of non co-operation in Congress.
Some of the Democratic holdouts, like Jim Matheson of Utah, say they need more time to study the bill, and that their voters are not yet convinced this is the time to take on climate change. "For the general public, this is not on the radar screen," he told the Guardian. "I think that voters in my state want to have more energy independence and they want a secure source of supply and they want to keep prices low. Among the general public I don't know how much this issue of climate change has penetrated."
The PR war aims to drive each version of such awareness deeper and deeper into the US consciousness. The outcome will determine the fate of the bill – and, perhaps, a global treaty to combat global warming and the sea level rise.
A clean bill
The draft American clean energy and security act released by congressmen Ed Markey and Henry Waxman on 31 March 2009 would for the first time put a ceiling on carbon emissions, and require industry to pay the costs of cutting global warming pollution.
It envisages a phased reduction that would cut emissions to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
But it offers no blueprint on the contentious issue of how many pollution permits – called allowances – will be given to industry and how many will be sold to generate government revenue.
The draft says those will be a matter for future negotiations. Other key provisions of the bill include a requirement that electricity companies get 25% of their power from clean sources by 2025, and for refineries to produce fuels that are 10% cleaner from 2030.