A new report recently released by InfluenceMap shows a number of oil and gas companies publicly throwing their support behind climate initiatives are simultaneously obstructing those same efforts through lobbying activities.

The report, Big Oil and the Obstruction of Climate Regulations, comes on the heels of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, a list of climate measures released by the CEOs of 10 major oil and gas companies including BP, Shell, Statoil and Total.

According to InfluenceMap the initiative is an attempt by leading energy companies to “improve their image in the face of longstanding criticism of their business practices ahead of UN COP 21 climate talks in Paris.”

“The big European companies behind the OGCI…will come under ever greater scrutiny, as the distance between the companies’ professed positions and the realities of the lobbying actions of their trade bodies grows ever starker,” InfluenceMap stated in a press release.

The group’s analysis shows a major disconnect between climate rhetoric and action among three key policy strands: carbon tax, emissions trading and greenhouse has emissions regulations.

The findings show companies like Shell and Total publicly support carbon pricing while at the same time support trade organizations that systematically obstruct the legislation’s implementation.

Oil majors BP, Chevron and Exxon also support these lobby groups but spend less time publicly supporting a price on carbon.  

Dylan Tanner, executive director of InfluenceMap, said industry is becoming more cautious of public oversight and as a result, has become subtler with its efforts to subvert climate progress. 

“Companies like Shell appear to have shifted their direct opposition to climate legislation to certain key trade associations in the wake of increasing scrutiny,” Tanner said.

“Investors and engagers need to be aware that these powerful energy and chemicals-sector trade bodies are financed by, and act on the instruction of, their key members and should thus be regarded as extensions of such corporate-member activity and positions."

The report shows Shell’s official messaging is wildly inconsistent with the positions of its trade associations.

Shell, for example, states on its website, “we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2.” However, green taxation working group BusinessEurope warned against such measures, suggesting they could threaten the “international competitiveness of EU industry.”

Shell executive An Theeuwes is chair of BusinessEurope's Green Taxation Working Group.*

Excerpt from InfluenceMap report shows disconnect between Shell's corporate statements and those of trade organizations supported by Shell.

Shell is also on the board of a powerful chemicals trade body in Europe, the CEFIC, that lobbied aggressively against the European Emissions Trading Scheme.

Shell is also a member of the American Petroleum Institute and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, North America's two most powerful industry lobby groups actively involved in opposing climate legislation. API's CEO recently criticized the UN climate talks as driven by a “narrow political ideology” and CAPP has previously disregarded opposition to the Alberta oilsands as merely "ideological" while arguing against new emissions standards. 

"If oil and gas companies calling for a price on carbon want to be taken seriously it is imperative that they commit both to calling on governments to implement such a policy and at the same time ensuring that all their lobbying is 100 per cent consistent with this objective,” Anthony Hobley, CEO of Carbon Tracker, said.  

“This is a strong line to take that has to be held accountable by investors, shareholders, governments and the public."

Carbon Tracker recently released a report that finds energy companies rely too heavily on industry scenarios that project high fossil fuel consumption in the future. The analysis shows industry uses high demand assumptions “to justify new and costly capital investment to shareholders.”

Companies that are inconsistent in what they say publicly and do behind the scenes don’t deserve to be taken seriously, Hobley said.

This kind of disingenuous activity “should be seen for what it is,” he said: “a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion and create the perception amongst shareholders that the company is taking the issue of climate change seriously."

* This article was updated to reflect An Theeuwes' position as chair of BusinessEurope's Green Taxation Working Group.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This article is re-published with permission from mikedesouza.com

As some of you may know, I’ll be starting a new role in January 2015 as an investigative resources correspondent for Reuters.

Getting access to records about government decisions and policies has long played a key role in the work of many journalists around the world. It will also be a key element for me in the weeks, months and years to come.

So to end off 2014, here are a few examples of some of my recent experiences with government efforts to either release or hide information.

Canada’s information watchdog has noted that the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes access to information as a quasi-constitutional right of all Canadians.

Obtaining access to information is an extension of freedom of expression since it allows the population to be informed and speak about government policies and decisions on how these governments spend public money.

Deleted records at the Canada Revenue Agency

The Canada Revenue Agency took more than a day to answer some basic questions about its decision to delete some instant messaging records of its employees.

You can find my report on this case over here in the Toronto Star.

The CRA declined to answer some of my questions directly, including whether it had verified whether any of the information deleted was of “business value.” By law, all Canadian government organizations are required to preserve records of “business value.”

When I asked some simple follow up questions – including whether any of its senior officials or media officers ever communicate with the minister or with Conservative political staffers in her office using text messages – the CRA called to complain that it wasn’t reasonable for me to ask these questions and expect them to respond within a couple of hours.

The Canada Revenue Agency instructs bureaucrats to delete logs and disable future logging of instant messages of its employees.

More than a week after I first asked questions and requested an interview with its commissioner, the CRA confirmed it was logging Internet activity of its employees – including on their mobile devices – in case it needed this information to review potential cases of misconduct, but that it wasn’t logging their text messages. Why does it keep one set of logs and not the other?

The CRA declined to answer this question.

You can find some of the emails detailing the CRA instructions to delete records of instant messages over here.

Foreign Affairs: This reporter’s question is “undeserving of a response”

Last summer, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development wasn’t providing a lot of information about its relationship with the American Legislative Exchange Council. The council, also known as ALEC, is a secretive organization. It benefits from charitable status based on its mandate to “educate” U.S. state legislators by connecting them with corporations to draft model pieces of legislation.

A series of high-tech firms including Google left ALEC in recent months because it continued to host discussions of people without scientific credentials that cast doubt about peer-reviewed research showing the link between human activity and climate change.

“I will suggest we decline the two requested interviews.” – John Babcock, spokesman for Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

Canadian diplomats have had some exchanges with members of ALEC as part of the federal government’s efforts to promote the oilsands and TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. But senior diplomats declined to grant interviews, which led me to write a series of detailed questions to the department in writing.

The department sent me some general and vague statements about who Canadian diplomats were meeting and what they were discussing.

In response to questions asking for details about diplomatic discussions with lobbyists on energy issues, a Canadian government spokesman recommended evasive answers before getting feedback from diplomats about whether they had the answers. This spokesman told his colleagues in internal e-mails that he believed I was “attempting to make specious connections.” He also said one of my questions was “undeserving of a response.”

He also suggested declining the interview requests, without even knowing the answers to the questions raised.

One Canadian diplomat also sent an e-mail to other officials in the department asking them to tell the journalist that she was “not available” for an interview.

You can find these internal e-mails here.

Transport Canada’s vacant rail safety positions

Over a span of several weeks, Transport Canada declined to answer a series of basic questions about critical positions that are vacant in its rail safety and dangerous goods divisions – vacancies that appear to date back to at least 2009.

It confirmed it had vacant oversight and inspector positions within its dangerous goods and rail safety divisions but it declined to identify them or even confirm whether it knew exactly how many of these positions were vacant.

After Reuters reported on internal records detailing these vacancies, the federal New Democrats attempted to raise the issue in Parliament.

In response to questions from NDP deputy leader Megan Leslie in the House of Commons, the parliamentary secretary to the transport minister, Jeff Watson, said that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government wouldn’t apologize for cutting “waste.”

“We make no apologies for reducing back office expenses while putting the resources where they belong on front-line safety,” Watson said.

The government declined to share details of what it had cut until it was forced to answer these questions through Canada’s Access to Information Act, which requires it to release public records upon request within 30 days to any Canadian who pays the $5 fee.

The records, received about 40 days after the request, confirm what Reuters had reported about vacant engineering and oversight positions. It also revealed these surprising details:

– All six senior positions in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods secretariat, including the manager, are vacant

– Five out of seven positions for scientists who review emergency response plans of companies transporting dangerous cargo are vacant at Transport Canada’s headquarters.

– Five out of seven positions at the headquarters are vacant for dangerous goods inspectors under chief enforcement

– Five out of 15 positions responsible for risk evaluation are vacant, including the chief of risk evaluation, and two accident analysts.

Liberal transportation critic David McGuinty said in an interview that the department appeared to be hiding information.

“Instead of coming clean and saying, we have a capacity problem right now, they won't do it,” said McGuinty in an interview. “They’ve got some explaining to do.”

You can find these records and the information that Transport Canada previously declined to release over here.

Or scroll down below to see the e-mail records from both Foreign Affairs; the charts of vacant and filled Transport Canada positions; and the e-mails from the CRA sending instructions from the office of the agency’s commissioner and chief executive officer for the deletion of internal records.

In terms of transparency, a public servant — who tipped me off about one of these stories — told me that all ministers in the Canadian government are transparent … because you can look right through them and see the prime minister’s office in the background.

Photo: Light Brigading via Flickr

CRA Delete Request by mikedesouza

DFATD underserving by mikedesouza

Dangerous Goods Chart Transport Canada by mikedesouza

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

David Hone, Shell’s top climate advisor told an audience at the COP20 climate negotiations underway in Lima, Peru today that the company enjoys its relationship with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a contentious corporate ‘bill mill’ known for its climate change denial and aggressive efforts to counteract emissions reductions and regulations.

More than 90 companies have parted ways with ALEC since 2012, according to the Center for Media and Democracy, after ALEC’s contentious position on climate science drew the ire of shareholders, citizen groups and unions.

Perhaps most famously, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt accused ALEC of “literally lying” about climate science and publicly announced the company’s decision to forego renewing its ALEC membership. The decision prompted a ‘tech exodus’ from ALEC which saw companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Yelp, Yahoo!, and AOL cut ties with the free market group.

Other notable companies that have left ALEC include Amazon, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, General Electric, General Motors, McDonalds, and Walmart among many others.

Even oil and gas companies like Alliant Energy, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips have severed ties (although ConocoPhillips returned this year as a director-level donor of the ALEC annual conference under the name of Phillips 66).

Speaking on the topic of carbon capture and storage, Hone was asked by Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy and chief scientist of the Union of Concerned Scientists, when Shell expected to part ways with ALEC.

Hone responded: “we remain a member of ALEC. We remain a member of many organizations that hold many different views on many different issues.”

“We clearly value what our relationship with ALEC offers. We can talk to state legislators, not necessarily about climate, but on a range of issues,” Hone said, adding that Shell enjoys the benefits of being a member of the lobby group even if they diverge on climate science.

Frumhoff said Hone’s answer points to a deep inconsistency with Shell’s position on climate: “Shell has really spoken out forcefully about the risks of climate change, the acceptance of findings of the IPCC, the need for emissions reductions. In some ways Shell is doing some good things on climate.”

On the other hand, Frumhoff continued, “they are a long-standing active funder and participant with the American Legislative Exchange Council which in the United States is a highly influential lobbying organization that is both outspoken on denying climate science and the serious risks as highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and outspoken in its efforts to create model legislation aimed at avoiding regulation of greenhouse gas emissions at a state level and also at a federal level in the U.S.,” he said.

ALEC has 2,000 legislative members and over 300 corporate members that may vote on ‘model’ bills and resolutions that are crafted to advance corporate interests.

ALEC has produced thousands of corporate-friendly bills that state legislators have advanced to argue for cheaper and easier access to tobacco, suppress tort legal action and increase private education profits — not to mention the extremely controversial Stand Your Ground gun laws and voter identification laws that have been compared to poll taxes — yet there is still very little transparency surrounding the bill writing and voting process.

Image Credit: David Hone via IPCC_CH on Twitter

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As the mid-term elections in the United States continue to heat up, a new report released Wednesday shows that Canadian corporations have registered at least $15.3 million USD in spending on direct lobbying of the U.S. federal government in the first nine months of 2014.

That includes $2.87 million by Canadian National Railway Company in the face of increasing regulatory attention to the rail transport industry on both sides of the border, said the report — Are Canadian corporations spending to influence the U.S. political process?

Written by The Shareholder Association for Research and Education (SHARE), the 13-page report noted that the TransCanada Corporation, well aware that the controversial Keystone pipeline project is up for approval at the federal level, spent $1.07 million on political lobbying from January to September.

The author of the report, Kevin Thomas, SHARE’s Director of Shareholder Engagement, said in a telephone interview that Canadian companies are clearly involved in political spending in the U.S.

“The problem is there’s no real requirement for disclosure on either side of the border that can quantify the extent of that spending,” Thomas said.

There needs to be transparency and proper oversight when it comes to companies trying to get involved in the political process, he added.

“Investor interest here [in Canada] is not necessarily being well served by lobbying.”

Other Canadian companies involved in U.S. lobbying include Blackberry ($2.59 million), Manulife Financial ($1.67 million), Bombardier Inc. ($1.39 million) and Barrick Gold Corporation ($1.26 million).

“As in Canada, corporations and unions are barred from contributing directly to U.S.  federal political candidates,” the report said. “However, they have multiple means of contributing funds to political activity that do not run afoul of this limit, and due to incomplete disclosure regimes, much of that spending is not transparent.”   

The report notes corporate contributions to political campaigns in the U.S. occur through direct contributions by a corporation’s Political Action Committee (PAC), contributions to so-called Super PACs, and indirect contributions to non-profit organizations and trade associations.

PACs pool money donated by members and contribute funds to political campaigns, the report said, while Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited sums on campaigns but cannot contribute directly to candidates or coordinate their spending activity with a candidate’s campaign.

Non-profit organizations can spend unlimited amounts on political advertising, and while their own spending must be disclosed, their source of funds can remain secret.

“This has given rise to widespread concerns about ‘dark money’ in U.S. elections,” the report said. “So far this year, dark money has already accounted for over $100 million in spending, and some observers expect it to top $200 million by the time the election is held.”

The veil was lifted on one of these non-profit organizations this fall when a technical glitch exposed a list of the Republican Governors’ Association (RGA) contributors. The organization offered perks for corporations that donate, including “intimate gatherings” with governors and other VIPs, the report details.

TransCanada Corporation ($50,000) was also listed among the contributors, the report said.  “Other known donors to the RGA are Barrick Gold, who gave $25,000 in 2012 and Encana, which gave $50,000 in 2013.”

Another non-profit organization with significant corporate support is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that drafts and promotes legislation.

“ALEC came under intense scrutiny for advocating the adoption of ‘stand your ground’ laws (legalizing the use of lethal force by civilians if they believe they face an imminent threat of serious bodily harm) across the U.S. even after the tragic Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida in 2012.”

ALEC has also advocated the expansion of “right-to-work” laws, and has been accused of climate-change denial, the report added.

“A number of U.S. companies including Google and Facebook took a reputational hit when they were found to be supporting the organization. Although its membership is still largely secret, TransCanada has recently been shown to sponsor ALEC’s activities.”

The report said the lack of effective disclosure regulations in the U.S. and in Canada means Canadian investors have no idea to what extent their companies have been contributing to U.S. political campaigns, or why.  

“What we do know is that although foreign corporations are banned from directly contributing to a candidate’s campaign, their U.S. subsidiaries are allowed to form a Political Action Committee and solicit contributions from their managers or shareholders.”

In many cases, as the report outlines, amounts disclosed at both the federal and state level by Canadian corporations are likely financially immaterial to shareholders. “The problem is that they may represent only a small part of what the company spends to influence political outcomes in the U.S.”

“Too much is still hidden from view.”

The report added there is also a real need for disclosure of corporate associations with particular political positions so that investors can decide whether the company’s political activity is consistent with their own long-term interests, and whether the company is vulnerable to reputational risks as a result of that spending.

The report notes that the Vancouver-based SHARE is engaged in a three-year project looking at how Canadian corporations’ influence on public policy debates and decision-making affects the interests of long-horizon investors.

“Institutional investors in the United States have been raising concerns about disclosure of corporate political spending for years,” the report said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.