Key words :
climate change,
lobbying
,climate change
,biofuel
,greenhouse gas
,solar power
,wind power
,waxman-markey
,corn
,ethanol
Author
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC, an energy and environmental strategy consulting firm. Since 2002 he has served as a consultant and advisor,...
The Climate-Industrial Complex
24 Aug, 2009 08:54 am
According to the Center for Public Integrity the number of companies and groups now lobbying the US Congress on the subject of climate change has passed the 1,000 mark with room to spare, standing at 1,150 as of the second quarter of 2009. Now, in one sense that figure shouldn't surprise anyone; the pending legislation on greenhouse gas emissions would affect nearly everyone in America, directly or indirectly, and it would be remarkable if numerous firms and organizations didn't want to help shape the rules that will govern our future emissions. But let's not kid ourselves. There's more than altruism behind such activity.
 |
Browsing through the search function on the Center for Public Integrity climate change site turned up a fascinating array of companies and groups lobbying the Congress on this issue. Traditional energy firms are well represented, including both resource/refining companies and a large number of electricity suppliers and their trade associations. In a sign of the growing strength of the renewable energy sector the list includes not just the expected alphabet soup of "trades" such as AWEA, ACORE, RFA, and SEIA, but also individual biofuel, wind, solar, fuel cell, and synthetic fuels companies. If this fight drags out, or the SEC follows through on threats to force companies to disclose their potential climate change liabilities, the list of participants seems likely to grow even longer.
Nor is it just industrial concerns seeking to protect their interests or capture a piece of the new pie; organizations ranging from AARP to the Water Research Foundation and including, of all things, the National Turfgrass Federation want to be heard on this issue. Then we have agricultural interests, who as the article describes achieved a very valuable save for the ethanol industry in the House at the climax of the Waxman-Markey negotiations. If you're interested in seeing who else is represented and how much they've put into this fight, I encourage you to browse this useful database and its pre-set reports.
I don't blame companies for chasing the plums that Congress is offering. There's too much at stake for many to eschew that pursuit on principle. I do wonder, however, whether this could possibly be the best way to embark on what looks like the most important change in our economy in the last several decades. The outcome now rests with the US Senate. If it is willing to challenge the House over a distorted system for allocating free emission allowances, and the agricultural lobby on requiring corn ethanol to demonstrate that it actually improves global greenhouse gas emissions, compared to petroleum-derived fuels, while rationalizing a plethora of marginally-related provisions, then we might get a climate bill that puts a price on emissions without contorting the economy more than the minimum amount necessary to achieve that end. Otherwise, we will end up with legislation that will tell us more about which sectors and groups wielded the most influence in Washington, DC this year than about how best to cut emissions.
Read Tally of Interests on Climate Bill Tops a Thousand on the Center for Public Integrity climate change site
Originally posted on Energy Outlook
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC, an energy and environmental strategy consulting firm. Since 2002 he has served as a consultant, advisor and communicator, helping organizations and executives address systems-level policy.
Key words :
climate change,
lobbying
,climate change
,biofuel
,greenhouse gas
,solar power
,wind power
,waxman-markey
,corn
,ethanol
2 comment(s)
[1]
Comment by Climate Change
27 Aug, 2009 06:05 pm
The Longer they stall on this issue, the more it will hurt America long term. We need to be investing in new technologies, our resources are not infinite, they are far from it. Change is inevitable and if we don't start preparing for it we will fall foul of it.
Alert Moderator
[2]
Comment by Geoff Styles
27 Aug, 2009 08:05 pm
I agree on the need for technology, but which ones? We need to ensure that they don't turn out like corn ethanol, which has yet to wean itself off subsidies after more than 30 years. The best way to ensure this doesn't degenate into a festival of pork is to set meaningful performance standards, fund R&D, and let the market deliver the results we need.
Alert Moderator
Author
Read more
By the same author
