Tweet

Damned if we do, damned if we don't - this is the CliffsNotes version of the ongoing Keystone XL pipeline debate. President Barack Obama recently halted TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline project, which would bring tar sands crude, or dilluted bitumen ("dilbit") from Alberta through the heart of the U.S., to Gulf Coast refineries near Port Arthur, Texas, where the oil would then be exported to the global market.

Most environmental organizations declared victory and suggest the Keystone XL pipeline is dead. Unfortunately, this is far from the case. Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently told The Hill he may attempt to rope the pipeline into the next payroll tax extension. Furthermore, a recent Congressional Research Services (CRS) paper said that under a little-used Consitutional clause, the two chambers of Congress, rather than the White House, could have the final say on the pipeline's ultimate destiny. CRS explained, 

[I]f Congress chose to assert its authority in the area of border crossing facilities, this would likely be considered within its Constitutionally enumerated authority to regulate foreign commerce.

Because the pipeline crosses the U.S.-Canada border, many thought that the U.S. State Department, and by extension the White House, had the final say in the manner. This may no longer be true.

On the other hand, even if the Keystone XL becomes a "pipe dream," the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side.

Tweet

Today, The New York Times ran an investigative piece uncovering a thick, multi-layered corruption scene, honing in on one man: U.S. Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK). Boren, many will recall, is one of the original co-sponsors of H.R. 1380, the NAT GAS Act, also known as the Pickens Plan, which would given tax credits to natural gas vehicles - the bigger the vehicle the more tax credits recieved. 

As I have covered on numerous occasions, the NAT GAS Act was written by and for the trio of energy magnate T. Boone Pickens; Pickens' long-time business partner and President and CEO of Clean Energy Fuels Corp., Andrew Littlefair; and Chesapeake Energy's CEO Aubrey McClendon. I coined the three a "self-enriching trifecta." 

Boren, as revealed by the Times, has served for years as a useful pawn for the unconventional gas industry insiders, or what the Occupy movement has rightfully coined the "one-percent."

"As Gas Riches Remake Plains, Lawmaker Shares in Bounty," the NYT article written by Eric Lipton, reveals many important ties between Boren and the gas industry which he is dutifully serving as a "public servant."

Tweet

The oil and gas industry has a long history of resisting public accountability and protective standards, and generally avoiding tough questions about its practices and attacking its critics. Just yesterday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote a piece in the Huffington Post titled, "The Fracking Industry's War On The New York Times — And The Truth," about this evasive behavior in the context of the industry’s current embrace of fracked unconventional gas and the many questions about the safety of fracking.

Kennedy (full disclosure - Bobby is my former boss and a good friend) applauded New York Times' reporter Ian Urbina for his investigative efforts in his latest installment titled, "Rush to Drill for Natural Gas Creates Conflicts With Mortgages," part of the NY Times extensive and ongoing "Drilling Down" series on the numerous perils associated with the rush to drill for gas.

A short recap on what that story found: People have signed over a million oil and gas leases in the past decade, but the leases sometimes let gas companies use their land in environmentally risky ways. Banks are not paying attention and often don’t know about these leases, so they pass along mortgages to investors that carry undisclosed risks, which is analogous to the way that the sub-prime mortgage disaster unfolded. The conflicts between the leases and the mortgage rules are clear, verified and wide-reaching.

Infamous 'Energy in Depth' Front Group Goes on the Attack

As if on cue, the oil and gas industry demonstrated Kennedy’s point, almost instantaneously attacking Urbina, yet again. 

The fracked gas industry’s chief apologists — Energy in Depth (EID)** — which I previously revealed as a front group launched by some of the largest oil companies on the planet (despite its claims to "mom-n-pop" roots), posted a blog titled, "Lenders’ Bagels?," desperately attempting to divert attention away from legitimate and serious questions raised by Urbina's New York Times story about the way that oil and gas leases impact mortgages. 

The EID piece is noteworthy for a couple reasons: It entirely ducks the very real conflicts that the New York Times highlighted, and it is riddled with factual inaccuracies.

Tweet

Yesterday, ​Media Matters​ reported in a story titled, "Media Ignore Study On Real Price Of Coal-Fired Power," that since the release of a ground-breaking report by the American Economic Review, titled "Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy," not a single mainstream media outlet has echoed the findings of the report — not a single one.

Wrote ​Media Matters,

A study published in the prestigious journal American Economic Review estimates that the costs imposed on society by air pollution from coal-fired power plants are greater than the value added to the economy by the industry. The study concluded that coal may be 'underregulated' since the price we pay for coal-fired power doesn't account for its costs.

According to a Nexis search, not a single major newspaper or television network has covered the study. By contrast, an industry-funded report on the cost of EPA regulations of these air pollutants has received considerable media attention.

By contrast, the mainstream media have flocked like vultures to an American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) "study," reporting it as gospel, even though ACCCE is merely a coal industry front group. That "study" concluded that two Clean Air rules would result in the loss of 1.4 million job-years by 2020 and increase electricity rates by over 23 percent in some areas.

Tweet

Robert Bryce, a fellow at the dirty industry-funded Manhattan Institute, is under increasing scrutiny as media outlets continue to use him as an “expert” on energy issues without disclosing his ties to the energy industry. DeSmogBlog’s Brendan DeMelle has written several pieces on Bryce’s connections to the industry, as well as how media outlets, including the New York Times, continue to allow Bryce to write op-eds on energy issues that are laden with fallacies without disclosing his conflict of interest.

From Brendan’s previous reports on Bryce’s New York Times piece:

Bryce penned an op-ed attacking renewable energy while promoting nuclear and fracked shale gas, with no disclosure in his byline about the Manhattan Institute’s fossil fuel clients. I offered Bryce's piece as an example in order to formally seek answers about the disclosure policy at the Times and whether it was adequate in light of the failure to disclose Bryce’s dirty energy backing.

Now Media Matters has done a fantastic job of detailing the numerous media outlets that are allowing the industry hack Bryce to pen his agenda-driven drivel, as well as uncovering where his group's funding is coming from:

Tweet

Back in June, I wrote about my effort to seek answers from The New York Times public editor’s office regarding the paper’s lack of a policy for disclosure of possible conflicts of interest among op-ed contributors. In my query to the NYT, I specifically cited the example of Robert Bryce from the Manhattan Institute, a group funded by Koch Industries, ExxonMobil and other polluters to confuse the public about climate change and energy issues.

Bryce had penned an op-ed attacking renewable energy while promoting nuclear and fracked shale gas, with no disclosure in his byline about the Manhattan Institute’s fossil fuel clients. I offered Bryce's piece as an example in order to formally seek answers about the disclosure policy at the Times and whether it was adequate in light of the failure to disclose Bryce’s dirty energy backing.

I didn’t get a concrete answer from Public Editor Arthur Brisbane’s office – his assistant acknowledged that "this is a topic that interests due to the number of emails we receive from readers on it," but rather than answer my questions or take action to highlight the policy oversight, he told me "We're going to keep your email on file in the event that we decide to tackle this issue in the future."

With our attention at DeSmogBlog diverted in the ensuing months by the Keystone XL pipeline controversy, the ever-growing list of the Koch Brothers’ threats to decency and democracy, and other dirty energy issues to focus on, I felt that another group would be better suited to devote attention to the NYT disclosure matter.  I asked my friend Gabe Elsner at the Checks & Balances Project to take a look at my blog about Bryce and the failed efforts to get a satisfactory answer from the NYT Public Editor’s office.

Well, I’m grateful to Gabe for following through, since the issue is finally gaining some recognition, with the launch of TrueTies.org (designed by Checks and Balances Project) and a petition by 50 journalists echoing the call for The New York Times to lead the industry by creating a disclosure policy for op-ed contributors.