BP Was Founding Member of ‘Cap-and-Trade’ Lobby

Lamarr

Star
Registered
BP Was Founding Member of ‘Cap-and-Trade’ Lobby

As BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig was sinking on April 22, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was on the phone with allies in his push for climate legislation, telling them he would soon roll out the Senate climate bill with the support of the utility industry and three oil companies — including BP, according to the Washington Post.

Kerry never got to have his photo op with BP chief executive Tony Hayward and other regulation-friendly corporate chieftains. Within days, Republican co-sponsor Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., repudiated the bill following a spat about immigration, and Democrats went back to the drawing board.

But the Kerry-BP alliance for an energy bill that included a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases pokes a hole in a favorite claim of President Obama and his allies in the media — that BP’s lobbyists have fought fiercely to be left alone. Lobbying records show that BP is no free-market crusader, but instead a close friend of big government whenever it serves the company’s bottom line.

While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.

Now that BP’s oil rig has caused the biggest environmental disaster in American history, the Left is pulling the same bogus trick it did with Enron and AIG: Whenever a company earns universal ire, declare it the poster boy for the free market.

As Democrats fight to advance climate change policies, they are resorting to the misleading tactics they used in their health care and finance efforts: posing as the scourges of the special interests and tarring “reform” opponents as the stooges of big business.

Expect BP to be public enemy No. 1 in the climate debate.

There’s a problem: BP was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill. As the nation’s largest producer of natural gas, BP saw many ways to profit from climate legislation, notably by persuading Congress to provide subsidies to coal-fired power plants that switched to gas.

In February, BP quit USCAP without giving much of a reason beyond saying the company could lobby more effectively on its own than in a coalition that is increasingly dominated by power companies. They made out particularly well in the House’s climate bill, while natural gas producers suffered.

But two months later, BP signed off on Kerry’s Senate climate bill, which was hardly a capitalist concoction. One provision BP explicitly backed, according to Congressional Quarterly and other media reports: a higher gas tax. The money would be earmarked for building more highways, thus inducing more driving and more gasoline consumption.

Elsewhere in the green arena, BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels and solar energy, two products that cannot break even without government support. Lobbying records show the company backing solar subsidies including federal funding for solar research. The U.S. Export-Import Bank, a federal agency, is currently financing a BP solar energy project in Argentina.

Ex-Im has also put up taxpayer cash to finance construction of the 1,094-mile Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline carrying oil from the Caspian Sea to Ceyhan, Turkey—again, profiting BP.

Lobbying records also show BP lobbying on Obama’s stimulus bill and Bush’s Wall Street bailout. You can guess the oil giant wasn’t in league with the Cato Institute or Ron Paul on those.

BP has more Democratic lobbyists than Republicans. It employs the Podesta Group, co-founded by John Podesta, Obama’s transition director and confidant. Other BP troops on K Street include Michael Berman, a former top aide to Vice President Walter Mondale; Steven Champlin, former executive director of the House Democratic Caucus; and Matthew LaRocco, who worked in Bill Clinton’s Interior Department and whose father was a Democratic congressman. Former Republican staffers, such as Reagan alumnus Ken Duberstein, also lobby for BP, but there’s no truth to Democratic portrayals of the oil company as
an arm of the GOP.

Two patterns have emerged during Obama’s presidency: 1) Big business increasingly seeks profits through more government, and 2) Obama nonetheless paints opponents of his intervention as industry shills. BP is just the latest example of this tawdry sleight of hand.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...a-capitalist-tool-95942659.html#ixzz0rKMX3Zq7
 
Here's an email from John Kerry, who worked directly with BP in crafting the Cap and Trade legislation:

=============================

Dear xxxxxxx,
Your gift willl be matched. Support President Obama today. Left to go: $2.662,337 Deadline: June 30. Contribute

On health care, Republicans fight for Big Insurance. On the economy, Republicans fight for Big Banks. And now, on our Gulf Coast, Republicans defend the big polluters who made the mess. No special interest is beyond special treatment.

We're only five months away from a crucial election, and the choice couldn't be clearer. Republicans think holding polluters accountable for this disaster is a "shakedown." Democrats think handing corporations a free pass is simply wrong. Taxpayers, not profit margins, need to come first.

The map is shifting quickly, and races across the country are heating up. What you do NOW will make the difference for the DSCC as they fight back against GOP attacks. I need you to support the DSCC today. Every dollar you give strengthens the Democrats' position. And we need all the strength we can get to counter the Republican corporate advantage.

Click here to make a donation of $5 or more to the DSCC.

The DSCC must raise $2,622,337 by June 30 to help fight the corporate-Republican complex. Every dollar you give will be matched, doubling its impact.

Republicans - aided by Karl Rove's American Crossroads group and corporate benefactors - have chosen their targets. They're coming after Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray and Russ Feingold - and the seats formerly held by President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

If we lose these Democratic votes, the Republican obstruction we fight every day in the Senate will look like child's play. They're already trying to kill legislation that would hold the polluters fully accountable for the spill in the Gulf and change America's energy future. With a few more votes, they can derail every piece of President Obama's agenda. His re-election could be in jeopardy. And our country will pay the price.

We can't let them. We've come too far - and have too much left to do - to allow right-wing Republicans to hand our democracy over to Big Business. It's time to counter their disdain toward progress with our own determination. What we do now will make all the difference come November.

Click here to make a donation of $5 or more to the DSCC. The DSCC must raise $2,622,337 by June 30 to help fight the corporate-Republican complex. Every dollar you give will be matched, doubling its impact.

The choice is clear. Republicans fight for Big Business. Democrats fight for you. Stand with me and fight.

Sincerely,
John Kerry
 
Numerous Congressional Members Deeply Invested in BP Stock, Reports Indicate

At least seven members of Congress reported holding a minimum of $15,000 in BP stock at the end of 2009, according to a preliminary analysis of personal financial disclosure reports by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate on Wednesday released reports covering the personal financial activities of members of Congress and their families for 2009. The Center's preliminary investigation focused on the reports of the 20 members of Congress who reported earning income from BP holdings or owning BP stock in 2008.

Of these, the seven who reported holding more than $15,000 in BP stock were: Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.).

Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, held a minimum of $350,000 in BP stock at the end of 2009, according to Kerry's newly released financial report. He, himself, owns only between $1,001 and $15,000 in BP.
 
Obama To Push Climate Change on Back of BP Spill

Barack Obama will on Wednesday make a renewed push to spur the US Senate into action on climate change, saying the BP oil spill underlines the urgency for the country to lessen its dependence on fossil fuels.

The US president will host senators from both parties at the White House – including those who have proposed variations on a climate change bill – but analysts are sceptical about whether he can overcome the political impasse on a proposal that is seen as essentially a tax.

“The oil spill has dramatically increased the urgency for the need to act,” said Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. “But I’m not looking for any breakthrough at the meeting. I think President Obama wants to listen to various concerns and follow up on various ideas.”

Since he was a presidential candidate, Mr Obama has been promoting legislation that would put a cap on carbon emissions from polluters but allow them to buy permits to emit more.

That effort ground to a halt in the Senate, but has moved back into the spotlight, thanks to the oil spill.

“The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now,” the president said in a televised address last week.

The president will meet senators on Wednesday including Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Richard Lugar, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins, all of whom have put forward bills for promoting cleaner energy or limiting carbon emissions.

Democrats John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Jeff Bingaman and Maria Cantwell, who have also been involved in drafting legislation, will also be there, as will Joe Lieberman, an independent.

“The president is going to talk about the progress, talk about what we need to do to get a deal and actually move some legislation forward,” said Bill Burton, a White House spokesman.

Mitch McConnell, Republican leader in the Senate, who has called cap-and-trade a “national energy tax”, has accused Mr Obama of trying to take political advantage of the oil spill.

A cap-and-trade bill passed through the House of Representatives last year but the process stalled in the Senate amid objections from Democrats representing industrial or rural states. Partisan rancour means aligned Republicans have backed away too.

That has made a simple energy bill – to boost energy efficiency and cut greenhouse gas emissions – look more feasible than a comprehensive climate change bill.

“It’s hard to see how, in this economic environment, they could get the critical element – a price on carbon – through the Senate,” says Thomas Mann, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution. “But I can imagine them getting an energy bill through.”

Mr Obama backs cap-and-trade but is open to options. “He wants to listen to some of the other ideas,” Mr Burton said.

The leading climate bill, put forward by Mr Kerry and Mr Lieberman, would use a cap-trade system, taxing greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power stations and oil refineries.

Mr Lieberman at the weekend said he would be willing to limit the bill, starting just with utilities.

Ms Cantwell, a Democrat, and Ms Collins, a Republican, are pushing a “cap-and-dividend” approach. Instead of setting up a carbon emission trading market, this would give rebates to utility customers. Mr Lugar’s bill has no cap but would offer incentives for non-fossil energy sources.
 
Nobel Laureate Steven Chu in 2007: BP is Going to Help Save the World

Morgen on June 22, 2010 at 1:18 pm

While the White House really, really wants you believe that they have their boot on the neck of BP, it turns out that a key Administration official had his head inserted somewhere else just three short years ago. Do you think NOBEL LAUREATE (and Secretary of Energy) Steven Chu still thinks BP is going to help save the world?

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B6Ui_4_cTE0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B6Ui_4_cTE0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

This is one of the ironies of the disaster in the Gulf. From all available evidence, BP is as committed as anyone to the “comprehensive energy reform” agenda of the White House. No doubt this reflects both political realism and market opportunism on their part, but BP’s 2009 “Road Map for America’s Energy Future” could have been written by John Kerry. Higher energy prices, cap and trade? Bring it on, says BP.

And this isn’t a recent shift on BP’s part. Here’s embattled BP Chairman Tony Hayward back in June 2007:

From BP’s perspective, the evidence that climate change is happening, and that it is manmade, is mounting all the time. As the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found, the evidence is almost overwhelming. We could wait until the science is 100% certain, but BP believes that, as an energy company, it has a duty to act pre-emptively. When you balance the likely impacts of not taking action against the real opportunities that exist to take action, it is difficult to believe that humanity will not move towards a solution to climate change…

We need to ensure that the costs of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are included in the price we pay for everything – whether it be a television, a train journey, or switching on a light – all should reflect the cost of emissions in their price.

This can be achieved through a Cap and Trade system, taxation, or regulation.

So it makes perfect sense that back in 2007 Steven Chu and UC Berkeley would be more than happy to accept a $500 million investment from BP to form the Energy BioSciences Institute. The relationship between Chu and BP was so cozy in fact that Chu subsequently brought on BP’s Chief Scientist Steve Koonin as an undersecretary at the Department of Energy.

My guess is that this history – and these relationships – played a part in the Administration’s initial confusion over whether BP was a “partner” in the effort to resolve the Gulf spill. Because for many within the Administration BP had been one of the “good guys”.

This also explains why BP has been so willing to prostrate themselves in front of their Democratic overlords in Congress and the White House. Here they thought they were trusted partners in saving the world from impending climate disaster. It turns out that their allies in the Obama Administration might soon be the only thing saving BP from the anger of a raging public…and insolvency.
 
I knew it! Like the other poster said, no surprise. this shit is all laid out and premeditated.
 
OMG, this spells it out. BP is the new Enron & they bout to rape us! For anyone that can't see through this scheme, here it is. It doesn't get any plainer than this

Enron Sought Global Warming Regulation, Not Free Markets

by Paul J. Georgia
February 2, 2002

It’s not surprising to most people that Enron delivered truckloads of money to politicians in an attempt to influence the political process. What may surprise many, however, is that Enron believed that one of its main opportunities to make money by gaming the political system was global warming.

Enron became one of the biggest corporate boosters of the Kyoto global warming treaty, which would require huge reductions in energy use by consumers and industry. According to an internal Enron memo, quoted by The Washington Post, the Kyoto treaty would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.”

In addition to all its political lobbying and contributions, Enron became a founding member of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change’s Business Environmental Leadership Council, a leading industry front group pushing the Kyoto agenda. Enron chairman Ken Lay also served on the board of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, along with Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense, and former Alcoa CEO and current Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill.

Even after President Bush decided to withdraw the U.S. from the Kyoto treaty, Enron continued to push for a domestic regulatory scheme known as cap-and-trade, whereby the government would set a cap on the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions allowed in the U.S.

It would then distribute permits or allowances to companies affected by the cap giving them the right to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide. Those allowances could then be traded in the open market.

Enron executives believed that a cap-and-trade program would put them in a position to dominate the U.S. energy market. Electric utilities, required to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, would be forced to switch from coal to natural gas as the only practical alternative to electricity production. As a leading trader of natural gas, Enron would be the recipient of a huge financial windfall.

Moreover, Enron is already a major trader of carbon dioxide emissions throughout the world, making it similarly positioned to take a fee with each and every ton of carbon dioxide traded within the United States.

The potential redistribution of wealth involves more than just energy companies. As noted by Ross McKitrick, an economist at The University of Guelph in Canada, “If emissions are controlled by tradable quotas, this creates a new, artificial scarcity in something that hitherto had been free: the right to release carbon dioxide.”

He also explains that the value of this newly created asset “represents the capitalized value to existing users of fossil fuels of the right to emit carbon dioxide at no charge. This value is already counted into balance sheets, investment portfolios, collateral for loans, etc., all through the economy.”

Putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions, says McKitrick, “extracts that money from its current use and hands it over to the beneficiaries of the policy.”

One of the main selling points of a cap-and-trade system is that it is allegedly less costly than other policy options, because trading allows reductions to take place where it is least expensive. But when uncertainty, which is pervasive throughout the economy, is taken into account, costs have been shown to be significantly higher.

When government caps emissions, there is really no way to forecast future permit prices. Mistakes in forecasting lead to large social costs. The emissions trading program to reduce sulfur dioxide has been plagued by wildly fluctuating prices, making it difficult for businesses to plan long term, thereby creating large costs that trickle down to the consumer.

A study by Resources for the Future found that given uncertainty about costs and benefits, emissions trading is about five times costlier than a carbon tax. Moreover, revenue collected from a carbon tax could be used to at least partially offset the higher energy costs. This isn’t the case with emissions trading.

If Enron’s lobbying efforts had succeeded, the United States would have ended up with a costly regulatory scheme designed to redistribute wealth from the American people to politically powerful companies like Enron.

So why would elected officials pursue such wrongheaded policies? Because cap-and-trade is a complex regulatory scheme that hides the true costs of compliance from taxpayers. Politicians can regulate energy use through the hidden tax of cap-and-trade to avoid accountability, creating the perfect cover for vultures like Enron to swoop in and capture the rewards.

Enron is gone, but the threat of energy rationing lingers on. Other companies are waiting in the wings to fill the political void. For example, on the day that the Pew Center on Global Climate change took Enron off its business council list, 29 major corporations were still listed. If these companies are successful, the cost in terms of money and jobs would dwarf anything seen since the reckless energy policies of the 1970s.
 
Back
Top