When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its relatively modest carbon emission limits proposal, preemptively opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, it was reported that many Chamber members and utilities didn’t actually stand with the Chamber on its opposition to climate progress.

A new survey of small businesses, “Small Business Owners’ Views on Climate & Energy Policy Reform,” indicates the U.S. Chamber is even more isolated in its regressive anti-science position. Especially considering the Chamber’s frequent attempts to claim small businesses as a part of its constituency, the clear call by small business owners to address climate change, evidenced in this report, is remarkable.

Among the major findings:

  • 87 percent of business owners named consequences of climate change as potentially harmful to their businesses;
  • 64 percent of businesses believe government regulation is needed to reduce carbon emissions from power plants; and
  • 57 percent of businesses said that the biggest carbon emitters should make the biggest reductions in carbon emissions and bear most of the costs of reduction efforts.

The findings came from a scientific, national phone survey of 555 small business owners (2 to 99 employees). Significantly, more respondents identified as Republican or independent-leaning Republican (43 percent total) than as being or leaning toward any other group. The report was produced by the American Sustainable Business Council.

Continue Reading

Share/Bookmark

Do you think there should be checks on people wearing computers on their faces while driving? Feel like there should be some oversight on self-driving cars? How about limits on the ability of companies to collect and commercialize information about elementary school students?

As today’s front page Politico article explains, these are a few of the issue areas in which Google is lobbying state officials behind closed doors, hurting society’s ability to have a democratic conversation about major new questions of our day. And there’s likely more legislation being pushed by Google that we don’t know about.

Tony Romm’s article, “States of Play: Google’s political roots run deep at the local level to counter regulators on Google Glass, Fiber and self-driving cars,” adds to the crescendo of concern about Google’s growing, nontransparent political spending. In addition to Google’s position as a voracious vacuum of consumers’ personal information, it has become a major lobbying spender on the federal level, sitting at No. 2 among companies so far this year. And Romm notes that there’s a whole other realm of lobbying where Google is very active and far less than transparent about its activities: state and local governments.

Continue Reading

Domestic Fossil Fuel Abundance Fails to Deliver Cheap Energy For Americans

House Republicans plan votes before July 4 on at least three bills (HR 6, HR 3301, HR 4899) to increase domestic fossil fuel production and facilitate their export, with a “Drill Baby Drill” mantra designed to inspire a return to lower gas prices. Political parties can be forgiven for failing to update their rhetoric in the face of changing market dynamics. But the antiquated bombast designed during a period of relative energy scarcity is downright silly in today’s era of energy abundance. Domestic fossil fuel production is at record highs, and in less than two years we’ll be the largest oil producer in the world. Despite the fact we’re awash in domestically-produced fossil fuels, Americans continue to pay more for gasoline. That’s because petroleum prices are set by energy traders based on global events—so our prices will go up even if these GOP bills pass as long as Chinese demand and Middle East unrest fuel speculation. Particularly problematic is HR 6, which will make it easier to export natural gas, threatening higher prices for American consumers.

Lost in the House effort to reduce regulations over oil drilling is their willful amnesia of the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon tragedy: why on earth is the House GOP trying to relax offshore drilling safety and environmental standards that the bipartisan commission found to be too weak? And of course none of the legislation recognize the need to deal with greenhouse gas emissions.

Eviscerating regulations over fossil fuel production and encouraging their export is a poor excuse for an energy policy. Progressively pricing carbon and investing billions into a sustainable energy infrastructure is the most cost-effective path to get our energy system working for families.

Tyson Slocum is Director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. Follow him on Twitter @TysonSlocum

As the White House, Congressional leadership and energy regulators at FERC are fast-tracking natural gas exports, they’re forgetting one important fact: it’s against the law. First, a little background. Less than a decade ago, natural gas prices were at record highs and folks like then-Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan were saying that the US had to make it easier to permit Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) imports. Fast forward to today, where fracking has resulted in booming domestic natural gas production, fueling calls to make it easier to permit LNG exports. But fracking poses enormous risks to the environment, nullifying emissions benefits when it is burned as a fuel. We’ve raised these concerns about LNG exports in the past, but new research shows that exporting LNG is illegal.

In 1975, President Ford signed the Energy Policy & Conservation Act into law. In order to protect consumers, Section 103(b)(1) of the EPCA (S.622) directed the President of the United States “to promulgate a rule prohibiting the export of crude oil and natural gas produced in the United States, except that the President may…exempt from such prohibition such crude oil or natural gas exports which he [sic] determines to be consistent with the national interest.” While the Department of Commerce promulgated rules banning crude oil exports, the agency never got around to writing rules banning natural gas exports. This oversight not only means that proposed LNG exports are most likely illegal, but that consumers are at risk. That’s because of supply and demand: the more fracked natural gas we export, domestic supplies will get tighter, pushing up gas prices for households and businesses.

Public Citizen will ask the Department of Commerce to issue this long-dormant requirement to ban natural gas exports (stopgasexports.org)not just to protect consumers, but to discourage the additional fracking that would occur to meet expanded demand wrought by LNG exports.

Tyson Slocum is Director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. Follow him on Twitter @TysonSlocum

In a word: Yes.

For the past four years since the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision, shareholders have been beating the drum for increased disclosure by companies on political spending. Nearly 1 million people have supported a rulemaking petition at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) calling for disclosure of corporate political spending. And active shareholders have filed hundreds of proposals with companies asking for the same disclosure.

Still, Corporate America insists that shareholder support for disclosure is scant. According to Wall Street, and its mouthpiece the Wall Street Journal, the thousands of comments at the SEC and the hundreds of shareholder proposals supporting disclosure are just fantasy.

Continue Reading

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.