[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE ROLE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
FIRMS IN PREVENTING ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Wednesday, September 14, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-637PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Jim Costa, CA Doug Lamborn, CO
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Robert J. Wittman, VA
CNMI Tom McClintock, CA
Jared Huffman, CA Garret Graves, LA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
Ruben Gallego, AZ Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Joe Neguse, CO Daniel Webster, FL
Mike Levin, CA Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Katie Porter, CA Russ Fulcher, ID
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM Pete Stauber, MN
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Mary Sattler Peltola, AK Jerry L. Carl, AL
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
Diana DeGette, CO Blake D. Moore, UT
Julia Brownley, CA Yvette Herrell, NM
Debbie Dingell, MI Lauren Boebert, CO
A. Donald McEachin, VA Jay Obernolte, CA
Darren Soto, FL Cliff Bentz, OR
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU Connie Conway, CA
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL Vacancy
Ed Case, HI
Betty McCollum, MN
Steve Cohen, TN
Paul Tonko, NY
Rashida Tlaib, MI
David Watkins, Staff Director
Luis Urbina, Chief Counsel
Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
KATIE PORTER, CA, Chair
BLAKE D. MOORE, UT, Ranking Member
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Louie Gohmert, TX
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL Jody B. Hice, GA
Steve Cohen, TN Vacancy
Jared Huffman, CA Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, September 14, 2022.................... 1
Statement of Members:
Moore, Hon. Blake D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Porter, Hon. Katie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Arena, Christine, Founder and CEO, Generous Ventures, Inc.,
San Francisco, California.................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Questions submitted for the record....................... 16
Aronczyk, Melissa, Associate Professor, School of
Communications & Information, Rutgers University, Brooklyn,
New York................................................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Questions submitted for the record....................... 21
Cooke, Amy O., Chief Executive Officer, John Locke
Foundation, Raleigh, North Carolina........................ 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Foster, Anne Lee, Former Director of Communication and
Community Engagement, Colorado Rising, Paonia, Colorado.... 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Questions submitted for the record....................... 35
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 66
Submission for the Record by Representative Hice
E-mails regarding the FTI subpoena threat................ 44
Submissions for the Record by Representative Porter
Screen captures of protesters following signature
gatherers.............................................. 64
Leaked e-mail from Anadarko.............................. 65
ExxonMobil ad............................................ 66
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ROLE OF
PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS IN PREVENTING ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
----------
Wednesday, September 14, 2022
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m. in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Katie Porter
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Porter, Velazquez, Garcia,
Grijalva; Moore, Gohmert, and Hice.
Also present: Representatives Boebert, Graves, Khanna,
Lowenthal, Rosendale, Tonko, and Trahan.
Ms. Porter. The Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
role of public relations firms in preventing action on climate
change.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member, or their designees. This will allow us to hear from our
witnesses sooner and help keep Members to their schedules.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or the close of the
hearing, whichever comes first.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be
permitted to ask questions of the witnesses at today's hearing:
the Member from Massachusetts, Representative Trahan; the
Member from New York, Representative Tonko; the Member from
California, Representative Khanna; the Member from California,
Representative Lowenthal; the Member from Montana, Mr.
Rosendale; the Member from Louisiana, Mr. Graves; and the
Member from Colorado, Mrs. Boebert.
Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess,
subject to the call of the Chair.
As described in the notice, statements, documents, or
motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at
[email protected]. Members physically present should
provide a hard copy for staff to distribute by e-mail.
Please note that Members are responsible for their own
microphones. As with our fully in-person meetings, Members can
be muted by staff only to avoid inadvertent background noise.
Finally, Members or witnesses experiencing technical
problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes to make an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KATIE PORTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Porter. I am here today in Washington after spending
several weeks home in Orange County, California. My community,
my state, just suffered through one of the worst heat waves
ever experienced. We know that climate change is real and it
requires urgent action.
For years, this Committee and Congress have tried to pass
legislation at the scale required to address the problem. Again
and again, we failed. Until finally, this summer, we passed the
Inflation Reduction Act. This law is the biggest investment in
clean energy in our nation's history.
But this fight is far from over. Big Oil has shown that
they will wage information warfare to stop legislation that
would end our country's reliance on fossil fuels. And more
often than not, when big oil fights, they win. Disinformation
has been a major cause. Fossil fuel companies aren't creating
and spreading disinformation themselves. They are buying it
from public relations firms.
At today's hearing, we will examine the tactics and
strategies that PR firms use to persuade lawmakers and the
public to trust Big Oil. The most familiar tactic is old-
fashioned marketing. I would like to play one ad as an example.
[Video.]
[Video is retained in the Committee's official files as
``The Power Of'' ad from the American Petroleum Institute.]
Ms. Porter. On its surface, this ad is completely benign,
just a company celebrating its service for a community after a
natural disaster.
But stop and consider what we know about climate change.
Fossil fuels are causing the atmosphere to heat rapidly,
increasing the intensity and frequency of hurricanes. Oil and
gas companies know that they are fueling these horrific
disasters, but then they have the nerve to hire PR firms to
turn these tragedies into crass marketing opportunities. It is
breathtaking in its shamelessness.
This is the new face of climate disinformation. Fossil fuel
companies used to discount the science of climate change. Now
fossil fuel companies want to convince Americans that Big Oil
itself is part of the solution, so that we will allow it to
continue their assault on our environment.
The PR firms we are discussing today play a critical role
in this disinformation effort. We will hear testimony from Anne
Lee Foster, who ran a campaign to pass a ballot initiative to
limit fracking in Colorado. She was followed and harassed. Her
trainings were infiltrated. Volunteers had threatening
materials sent to their homes. There were alleged bribes to
sabotage the signature-gathering effort. All of these
despicable tactics were the work of PR professionals hired by
Big Oil.
We invited the PR firm Pac/West to testify and help us
understand their tactics during the Colorado ballot initiative.
They declined.
We invited Story Partners, another PR firm that was
implicated in the Colorado ballot initiative. They declined.
We invited Singer Associates to tell us about their fake
news website that was created to improve Chevron's standing in
the community after their negligence caused a massive refinery
fire that sent 15,000 community members to the hospital. They
declined.
At this point, we might ask, what are these firms trying to
hide? But thanks to documents that this Committee has obtained
and released, we know some of the answers.
These PR firms create shell organizations that claim to
represent large numbers of people in their advocacy for Big
Oil's priorities, when they really just represent the companies
that can afford to hire PR firms. They attack people on the
opposing side personally. They set up fake online profiles to
infiltrate non-profit groups. I encourage the American people
to look at this Committee's report for a glimpse under the hood
at these PR firms' tactics.
These tactics are not universal in the public relations
industry. In fact, there are already signs that individuals and
entire companies are moving away from this work. I hope the PR
industry will continue to shun such tactics and the firms that
use them. Until then, this Committee's investigation will
continue.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Porter follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Katie Porter, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
I'm here today in Washington after spending several weeks back home
in Orange County, California. My community just suffered through one of
the worst heat waves our state has ever experienced. We know that
climate change is real and it requires urgent action.
For years, this Committee and Congress have tried to pass
legislation at the scale required to address the problem. Again and
again, we failed. Until finally, this summer, we passed the Inflation
Reduction Act. This law is the biggest investment in clean energy in
our nation's history.
But this fight is far from over. Big Oil has shown that they will
wage information warfare to stop legislation that would end our
country's reliance on fossil fuels. And more often than not, when Big
Oil fights, they win. Disinformation has been a major cause.
Fossil fuel companies aren't creating and spreading disinformation
themselves--they are buying it. From public relations firms.
At today's hearing, we will examine the tactics and strategies that
PR firms use to persuade lawmakers and the public to trust Big Oil. The
most familiar tactic is old-fashioned marketing. Let's play one ad as
an example.
On the surface, this ad is completely benign. Just a company
celebrating its service for a community after a natural disaster.
But stop and consider what we know about climate change. Fossil
fuels are causing the atmosphere to heat rapidly, increasing the
intensity and frequency of hurricanes.
Oil and gas companies know they are fueling these horrific
disasters, but they have the nerve to hire PR firms to turn these
tragedies into crass marketing opportunities. It's breathtaking in its
shamelessness.
This is the new face of climate disinformation. Fossil fuel
companies used to try to debate the science of climate change. Now
fossil fuel companies want to convince Americans they are part of the
solution so we will let them continue their assault on our environment.
The PR firms we are discussing today play a critical role in this
effort. We will hear testimony from Anne Lee Foster, who ran a campaign
to pass a ballot initiative to limit fracking in Colorado. She was
followed and harassed. Her trainings were infiltrated. Volunteers had
threatening materials sent to their homes. There were alleged bribes to
sabotage the signature gathering effort. All of these tactics were the
work of PR professionals hired by Big Oil.
We invited the PR Firm Pac/WEST to testify and help us understand
their tactics and why they engaged in them during the Colorado ballot
initiative. They declined. We invited Story Partners, another PR firm
that was implicated in that Colorado ballot initiative. They declined.
We invited Singer Associates to tell us about their fake news
website that was created to improve Chevron's standing in the community
after their negligence caused a massive refinery fire that sent 15,000
community members to the hospital. They declined. At this point, we
might ask what these firms are trying to hide. But thanks to documents
this committee has obtained and released, we know some of the answers.
They create shell organizations that claim to represent large
numbers of people in their advocacy for Big Oil's priorities, when they
really just represent the companies that can afford PR firms. They
attack the people on the opposing side personally. They set up fake
online profiles to infiltrate nonprofit groups. I encourage the
American people to look at this Committee's report for a glimpse under
the hood of the PR firm tactics.
These tactics are not universal in the public relations industry.
In fact, there are already signs that individuals and entire companies
are moving away from this work. I hope the PR industry will continue to
shun such tactics and the firms that use them.
Until then, this Committee's investigation will continue.
______
Ms. Porter. I now yield to Ranking Member Moore for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BLAKE D. MOORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chair Porter. It must certainly be
election season.
It is an absolute disservice to the American people when
Committee hearings and time are used solely to score political
points, instead of working toward solutions for the problems
that everyday people face. We have skyrocketing energy costs
and inflation across the board, draining families' pockets. But
we are here talking instead about public relations
professionals doing their job, and highlighting that the
companies that they work for, or their clients, contributed to
the Red Cross during an emergency.
It is unbelievable to me to what level we can stoop during
an election season to try to highlight that giving tax credits
for electric vehicles that you can't even buy for 18 months
from now is somehow going to save the world, when the rhetoric
that we have seen from the Majority be an absolute attack on
American energy.
In reality, this hearing is just another attempt to vilify
this nation's most significant energy sector. And what is
particularly concerning is that today's approach by Democrats
threatens the exercise of First Amendment rights. Squashing
debate simply because you don't like the opposition goes
against our nation's core principles.
It is costing families more and more to buy groceries, from
eggs to the cost of bacon, to fill up our gas tanks, and keep
the lights on at home.
The state of California just faced the threat of rolling
blackouts and was forced to issue a statewide grid emergency.
And what wasn't disinformation and what wasn't rhetoric was--
about 2 or 3 months before I came on and was sworn into this
role for my freshman term of Congress, I sat down with an
energy sector and individuals in my state, and they said,
``California, in a year from now, they are going to have
rolling brownouts.'' And they showed me articles and they
showed me data that was going to actually prove what plays out
and what we are seeing right now in California. That is not
disinformation. That is a crisis, an energy crisis that is
self-caused because of rhetoric and this attempt to sort of
squash what the energy industry is doing to build a broad
energy portfolio, and do the right thing, and move in the right
direction.
Employers throughout the economy are struggling to handle
increasing operating costs and facing impossible decisions. All
of these folks are impacted daily by political decisions, and
they all deserve to have a voice in the energy policy debate.
When we elevate the voices of hardworking Americans, it paints
a stark picture from the increasing costs of daily life in our
country. It is getting more expensive for everyone.
One of my constituents, a dairy producer, described how the
cost to operate just one piece of equipment increased fivefold,
from $500 to $2,500 a day, because of rising gas prices. His
proposed solution is to turn on American energy. He is right.
We should be developing our energy sources, an all-of-the-above
approach.
And I have never shied away from the importance of
emissions-reducing technologies, embracing nuclear, and not
just relying on wind and solar, because we can't. Wind and
solar just produces brownouts. And if we don't have a baseload
power, we will not be able to do any type of expansion of our
energy grid.
And, particularly, the most damaging thing we have seen
with the Biden administration is they hamper our energy. It is
taking 17 months to hold an onshore lease sale and they are
failing to complete a single sale for offshore drilling.
Sadly, my constituent's story is not unique, and voters
deserve to understand the devastating impacts misguided
policies can have before deciding whether or not to implement
them.
Ms. Amy Cooke joins us today from the John Locke
Foundation, and she can tell us how important it is to provide
an outlet for Americans to share their stories and about their
employment in the energy and gas industry, the industry's
support for local fire stations, or the Red Cross, or how
affordable energy factors into business decisions.
When anti-fracking measures were introduced in Colorado,
voters needed to know how these policies would impact their
neighbors' livelihoods and their own pocketbooks, which is all
playing out. Denying such voices would have had devastating
consequences. The ability to exercise political speech ensures
all viewpoints are represented in policy debates. The Supreme
Court goes to great lengths to protect speech, especially
speech related to public issues.
It is clear to me that the ongoing energy crisis and
development of our domestic resources are public issues of
great importance to American families. This Committee should be
wary of any attempt to stifle the exercise of free speech,
regardless of whether or not the Majority agrees with the
viewpoint. The American people deserve better than a hearing
intended to chill speech or salvage a botched investigation.
What we should be doing instead--to begin, this Committee
should use this time examining how best to pursue an all-of-
the-above energy strategy. With a diverse energy portfolio, all
sources of the energy play a role: wind, solar, nuclear,
hydropower, oil, and natural gas. The practical implications of
this approach are that we continue to harness the innovative
spirit of Americans to create technologies and the public
retains access to affordable and reliable energy. Our nation
has the ability to do this, and it is time that we capitalize
on these abilities, regain independence, and lower costs for
the American people.
With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Blake D. Moore, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Utah
Thank you, Chair Porter. It must certainly be election season. It
is an absolute disservice to the American people when Committee
hearings and time are used solely to score political points, instead of
working toward solutions for the problems that everyday people face. We
have skyrocketing energy costs and inflation across the board, draining
families' pockets. But we are here talking instead about public
relations professionals doing their job, and highlighting that their
companies that they work for, or their clients, contributed to the Red
Cross during an emergency.
It is unbelievable to me to what level we can stoop during an
election season to try to highlight that giving tax credits for
electric vehicles that you can't even buy for 18 months from now is
somehow going to save the world, when the rhetoric that we have seen
from the majority be an absolute attack on American energy.
In reality, this hearing is just another attempt to vilify this
Nation's most significant energy sector. And what is particularly
concerning is that today's approach by Democrats threatens the exercise
of First Amendment rights. Squashing debate simply because you don't
like the opposition goes against our Nation's core principles.
It is costing families more and more to buy groceries, from eggs to
the cost of bacon, to fill up our gas tanks, and keep the lights on at
home.
The State of California just faced the threat of rolling blackouts
and was forced to issue a statewide grid emergency. And what wasn't
disinformation and what wasn't rhetoric was--about 2 or 3 months before
I came on and was sworn into this role for my freshman term of
Congress, I sat down with an energy sector and individuals in my State,
and they said, ``California, in a year from now, they are going to have
rolling brownouts.'' And they showed me articles and they showed me
data that was going to actually prove what plays out and what we are
seeing right now in California. That is not disinformation. That is a
crisis, an energy crisis that is self-caused because of rhetoric and
this attempt to sort of squash what the energy industry is doing to
build a broad energy portfolio, and do the right thing, and move in the
right direction.
Employers throughout the economy are struggling to handle
increasing operating costs and facing impossible decisions. All of
these folks are impacted daily by political decisions, and they all
deserve to have a voice in the energy policy debate. When we elevate
the voices of hardworking Americans, it paints a stark picture from the
increasing costs of daily life in our country. It is getting more
expensive for everyone.
One of my constituents, a dairy producer, described how the cost to
operate just one piece of equipment increased fivefold, from $500 to
$2,500 a day, because of rising gas prices. His proposed solution is to
turn on American energy. He is right. We should be developing our
energy sources, an all-of-the-above approach.
And I have never shied away from the importance of emissions-
reducing technologies, embracing nuclear, and not just relying on wind
and solar because we can't. Wind and solar just produces brownouts. And
if we don't have a baseload power, we will not be able to do any type
of expansion of our energy grid.
And particularly, the most damaging thing we have seen with the
Biden administration is they hamper our energy, and it is taking 17
months to hold an onshore lease sale, and failing to complete a single
sale for offshore drilling.
Sadly, my constituent's story is not unique, and voters deserve to
understand the devastating impacts misguided policies can have before
deciding whether or not to implement them.
Ms. Amy Cooke joins us today from the John Locke Foundation, and
can tell us how important it is for--how important it is to provide an
outlet for Americans to share their stories and about their employment
in the energy and gas industry, the industry's support for local fire
stations, or the Red Cross, or how affordable energy factors into
business decisions.
When anti-fracking measures were introduced in Colorado, voters
needed to know how these policies would impact their neighbors'
livelihoods and their own pocketbooks, which is all playing out.
Denying such voices would have had devastating consequences. The
ability to exercise political speech ensures all viewpoints are
represented in policy debates. The Supreme Court goes to great lengths
to protect speech, especially speech related to public issues.
It is clear to me that the ongoing energy crisis and development of
our domestic resources are public issues of great importance to
American families. This Committee should be wary of any attempt to
stifle the exercise of free speech, regardless of whether or not the
majority agrees with the viewpoint. The American people deserve better
than a hearing intended to chill speech or salvage a botched
investigation.
What we should be doing instead--to begin, this Committee should
use this time examining how best to pursue an all-of-the-above energy
strategy. With a diverse energy portfolio, all sources of the energy
play a role: wind, solar, nuclear, hydropower, oil, and natural gas.
The practical implications of this approach are that we continue to
harness the innovative spirit of Americans to create technologies, the
public retains access to affordable and reliable energy. Our Nation has
the ability to do this, and it is time that we capitalize on these
abilities, regain independence, and lower costs for the American
people.
______
Ms. Porter. Thank you, Ranking Member Moore. Now I would
like to turn to our witness panel.
Before introducing the witnesses, I will remind them that
they are encouraged to participate in the Witness Diversity
Survey created by the Congressional Office of Diversity and
Inclusion. Witnesses may refer to their hearing invitation
materials for further information.
Let me remind the witnesses that, under our Committee
Rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but
that their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
When you begin, the timer will begin, and it will turn
orange when you have 1 minute remaining. I recommend that
Members joining remotely pin the timer so that it remains
visible.
After your testimony is complete, please remember to mute
yourself to avoid any inadvertent background noise.
I will allow the entire panel to testify before questioning
the witnesses begins.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Christine Arena, Founder and
CEO of Generous Ventures, Inc.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE ARENA, FOUNDER AND CEO, GENEROUS
VENTURES, INC., SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Arena. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Chair Porter,
Ranking Member Moore, and members of the Committee. My name is
Christine Arena. I am a 20-year communications industry
professional and also an author and researcher on greenwashing.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the
role of PR firms in preventing climate action.
I come to this subject as a marketing practitioner and
advocate for change inside my industry. The link between
misleading communications and climate policy obstruction is
well documented. This year, the IPCC identified rhetoric and
misinformation and corporate advertisement and brand building
strategies from vested interests as primary barriers to climate
action. Much research on the communications techniques used by
those vested interests to mislead the public has been published
by institutions including Harvard, George Mason, the Union of
Concerned Scientists, and many others. Thirteen lawsuits have
been filed against U.S. fossil fuel companies based on consumer
messaging that some of our country's top lawmakers consider to
be deceptive and even unlawful.
These ongoing efforts to expose the communications
architecture behind climate policy obstruction are not about
demonizing an industry or playing politics. They are about
revealing the truth and protecting lives.
My written statement illustrates a surge in pro-climate PR
and ad messaging that sharply conflicts with corporate lobbying
and investment strategies on climate change. It details how
disinformation is becoming both more prevalent and more
nuanced.
Until now, the PR firms most responsible for this work have
escaped scrutiny. The cloak of client confidentiality and
privilege provides an effective shield, and PR executives have
flatly denied wrongdoing. But new analysis, including the paper
``The Role of Public Relations Firms in Climate Change
Politics'' by Brown University's Robert Brulle and Carter
Werthman, reveals some of the central players and key methods
used to block climate action.
These methods include: (1) corporate image promotion,
including greenwashing or corporate advertising that produces
false positive perceptions of a company or industry's
environmental performance; (2) third-party mobilization,
including efforts to simulate the appearance of citizen support
for a corporate position through the use of proxies or
Astroturf groups; and (3) de-legitimization of the opposition,
including more divisive efforts to monitor, surveil, discredit,
distract, or intimidate individuals and groups that oppose
industry interests.
Although the first strategy is most common, my written
statement includes recent examples of how the fossil fuel
industry has used all three prongs to attack national and local
policy measures, including its efforts to attack environmental
regulations following the Ukraine invasion and the $31 million
campaign to crush Colorado's Prop 112.
Like the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industry has
always relied on public relations to advocate for its
interests. But what is new is the intensity of its pursuits,
the complexity of its operations, and the vast resources it
deploys to bulldoze regulatory obstacles in its path.
Ordinary citizens possess neither the specialized knowledge
needed to detect the myriad of factual omissions and
distortions included in greenwashed ads, nor the financial
resources needed to make their voices heard over the industry's
extensive lobbying and public relations efforts. By employing
disinformation strategies and tactics, certain PR firms are
hindering an informed populace from participating in a robust
national climate conversation and corresponding climate action.
At current levels, climate disinformation is not merely an
ethical problem. It causes harm to individuals, society, and
democracy, which is why accountability is so urgent. Unfettered
greenwash will only result in the continued growth and spread
of knowingly false claims.
I am grateful to so many of my communications industry
colleagues for rallying together now to elevate standards and
practices, and to the social scientists who have given us the
applicable research and frameworks needed to do so. I humbly
ask this Committee to address these issues with similar
resolve. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Arena follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christine Arena, CEO and Founder, Generous
Ventures, Inc., San Francisco, California
I. Introduction
Chairman Grijalva, Chair Porter, Ranking Member Moore, and members
of the Committee, my name is Christine Arena. I am a twenty-year
communications industry professional specializing in sustainability and
social-impact campaigns. I am also an author and researcher on
greenwashing. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today
about the role of public relations firms in preventing action on
climate change. I come to this subject as a marketing practitioner and
advocate for change inside my industry.
II. The Context
For decades, scientists, researchers, and journalists have
carefully monitored the fossil fuel industry's public relations and
lobbying efforts pertaining to climate change. Dozens of peer-reviewed
papers have been published on the subjects of climate disinformation
and greenwash, by institutions including the Union of Concerned
Scientists, and Brown, Harvard, Yale, George Mason, and Stanford
universities, among others. Multiple efforts to catalog and archive
tens of thousands of documents related to the fossil fuel industry's
influence on climate science research and environmental regulation are
underway.\1\ Thirteen lawsuits have been filed against fossil fuel
companies--by cities and states including Baltimore, Massachusetts,
Virginia, and Hawaii--on the basis of consumer-facing messaging that
some of our country's top lawmakers consider to be so misleading that
it is unlawful.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Fossil Fuel Industry Documents, https://
www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/fossilfuel/; The Lie-brary, https://
climateintegrity.org/lie-brary; and Kathy Mulvey and Seth Shulman ``The
Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal
Decades of Corporate Disinformation,'' Union of Concerned Scientists
(July 2015), https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/
The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf.
\2\ Ben Franta, ``Climate Litigation Rising: Hotspots to Watch,''
Trends: American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and
Resources 53, no. 3 (January/February 2022), https://
www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/publications/
trends/2021-2022/january-february-2022/climate-litigation-rising/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These ongoing efforts to illustrate the vast communications
architecture behind climate policy obstruction are not about demonizing
an industry or playing politics. They are about revealing the truth and
protecting lives.
In her complaint against ExxonMobil, Massachusetts Attorney General
Maura Healey alleges that the company launched an effort, ``reminiscent
of the tobacco industry's long denial campaign about the dangerous
effects of cigarettes,'' to deceive consumers and investors about
climate change. She argues that both the company's misleading
statements to consumers and investors about its fossil fuel products
and its failure to disclose that the products themselves are disrupting
the climate ``are particularly deceptive given the stark contrast
between the company's long internal knowledge of the role its fossil
fuel products play in causing climate change and the extensive
marketing statements in which the company promotes the purported
environmental benefits of those same products.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Complaint: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. ExxonMobil
Corporation, October 24, 2019: 153-56, https://www.mass.gov/files/
documents/2019/10/24/Complaint%20%20Comm.%20v.%20
Exxon%20Mobil%20Corporation%20-%2010-24-19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her complaint further alleges that ExxonMobil's advertising and
public relations messaging deceptively positions the company as an
environmental steward while it is actually massively ramping up fossil
fuel production and spending only a small portion of revenues on
developing clean energy. She contends that ExxonMobil's
misrepresentations and failures to disclose are ``unlawful'' and have
delayed the needed transition to clean energy, making existential
climate-driven threats to local, national, and global economies, from
severe droughts and floods to infrastructure failures, with more likely
to occur.
Disinformation is about much more than the communications of a
single corporation. The correlation between deliberately misleading
public relations and advertising messaging, and climate policy
obstruction, is widely documented worldwide. In April 2022, the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--a body
comprised of more than 270 researchers from 67 countries around the
world--released a report addressing climate mitigation strategies. In
the report, the IPCC stated that ``vested interests have generated
rhetoric and misinformation that undermines climate science and
disregards risk and urgency.'' \4\ It warned of ``corporate
advertisement and brand-building strategies that may also attempt to
deflect corporate responsibility to individuals or aim to appropriate
climate-care sentiments in their own brand-building.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/
ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Full_Report.pdf.
\5\ IPCC, 2022, TS-106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPCC report also noted that the greatest barrier to achieving
the ambitious emissions cuts that are required in order to ward off the
worst climate change impacts is not technological in nature, but social
and political. The missing ingredient for climate action globally and
in the United States is political will. The communications and lobbying
activities of a powerful minority, whom the IPCC calls the ``vested
interests,'' are in turn strategically focused on disrupting that will.
We are caught in an unrelenting cycle: The worse the climate crisis
gets, the faster renewable energy scales, the harder vested industry
interests push back against progress. New empirical analyses of
greenwashing and climate disinformation are constantly emerging in the
wake of an inundation of fossil fuel-industry public relations and
advertising messaging across social media platforms and news websites.
It is increasingly difficult to log into Facebook or Twitter, or the
New York Times or Fox News online, without seeing one of the fossil
fuel industry's misleading ads or posts.
``Information pollution,'' or a flood of misleading content,
continues to circulate in the public sphere, as neither fossil fuel
marketers, nor their public relations, advertising, or media partners,
are financially incentivized to stop it (see fig. 1).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsIn addition to increasing in volume, misleading fossil fuel
advertising and public relations messaging has also grown more complex.
Fossil fuel marketers have shifted from denying or minimizing the
science behind climate change to falsely suggesting that oil and gas
are a central part of the climate-solutions mix. Almost all green-
themed fossil fuel ads contain factual omissions and distortions, and
many also contain climate delay frames, or common discourses that
justify inaction or inadequate efforts.\6\ Because these omissions,
distortions, and delay frames are more subtle and nuanced than blatant
lies or overt climate denial, they are more difficult for consumers to
discern (see fig. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ On omissions and distortions, see Cortie Werthman and Emily
Rockwell, ``Beyond Climate Denial: The Public Relations Industry's Role
in Obstructing Climate Action,'' Climate and Development Lab, November
30, 2021, http://www.climatedevlab.brown.edu/uploads/2/8/4/0/28401609/
beyond_climate_denial_-_cdl_2021_report.pdf; on climate delay frames,
see William F. Lamb et al., ``Discourses of climate delay,'' Global
Sustainability 3 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsAccording to a new report from research organization and think
tank InfluenceMap, which evaluated the public relations messaging,
advertising, lobbying, and business activities of six top oil and gas
firms, there is a ``greenwashing epidemic'' afoot--that is, ``a
systemic pattern of pro-climate public relations and marketing
messaging that is deeply inconsistent with the companies' government
policy influencing and investments strategies on climate change.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ InfluenceMap, ``Big Oil's Real Agenda on Climate Change,''
September 2022: 7-9, https://influencemap.org/report/Big-Oil-s-Agenda-
on-Climate-Change-2022-19585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Across a research sample of 3,421 items of recent public
communications analyzed from five top oil and gas companies, 60 percent
contained at least one green claim, while only 23 percent contained
claims promoting oil and gas. However, only 12 percent of the five
companies' 2022 combined capital expenditure (CapEx) is forecasted to
be dedicated to ``low-carbon'' activities.
In Exxon's case, 65 percent of its public messaging contained a
green claim, while just 8 percent of its capital expenditures are
devoted to low-carbon activities.
In Chevron's case, 49 percent of its public messaging contained a
green claim, compared to 5 percent of its capital expenditures devoted
to low-carbon activities.
In BP's case, 61 percent of its public messaging contained a green
claim, compared to 15 percent of its capital expenditures devoted to
low-carbon activities.
Many other studies also indicate that greenwashing is a pervasive
problem, as strategies related to decarbonization and clean energy are
dominated by pledges rather than concrete actions, while a continuing
business model dependence on fossil fuels and ``insignificant and
opaque spending'' on clean energy is widely observed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Mei Li, Gregory Trencher, and Jusen Asuka, ``The clean energy
claims of BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell: A mismatch between
discourse, actions and investments,'' PLoS One 17, no. 2 (February 16,
2022): e0263596, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to InfluenceMap, the prominence of pro-climate public
communications from fossil fuel supermajors also appears to be
misaligned with the messaging they direct at policy makers. None of the
companies assessed have aligned their climate policy engagement
activities with the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement. None disclose on
the strategies that inform their public messaging on climate change,
nor on the resources they dedicate to related activities. None
mentioned the fact that overall oil and gas production appears set to
increase up until 2026, which significantly overshoots the
recommendations in the International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions
by 2050 Scenario.
In response to resounding scientific consensus and stark guidelines
issued by the industry's own trade bodies, these companies are quite
literally turning up the gas.
As described in the 2022 paper, ``An Integrated Framework to Assess
Greenwashing,'' there remains not only an enormous gap between the
words and actions of polluting companies, but also an accountability
gap: ``The high percentage of greenwashing in advertising shows that
companies feel sufficiently confident that they will not be held
accountable for their claims.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Noemi Nemes et al., ``An Integrated Framework to Assess
Greenwashing,'' Sustainability 2022, 14, no. 8: 4431, https://doi.org/
10.3390/su14084431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This accountability gap is even more concerning when you consider
the fact that much of the greenwashing and climate disinformation
circulating in the public sphere originates not from commercial
advertisements, but from carefully calibrated, multimillion-dollar
public relations and lobbying activities--including sponsored content,
social media posts, strategy memos, letters to lawmakers, talking
points, public presentations, media tours, local events, pledges,
sponsorships, endorsements, partnerships, and certifications--that are
not often discernible to the target audience nor within the scope of
national regulations.
This brings me to the role of public relations firms, and the
strategies and tactics some of them use to obstruct climate action on
behalf of their clients.
III. PR Strategies and Tactics Used to Obstruct Climate Action
Until now, public relations firms working with fossil fuel clients
have largely escaped public scrutiny of the true extent and nature of
their role in preventing action on climate change, largely because they
closely guard the identity of their clients. The cloak of client
confidentiality and client privilege provides an effective shield from
climate accountability, particularly for firms with the deepest fossil
fuel-industry ties; however, new social science research, investigative
journalism, and public records shed light on the extraordinary scope
and impact of that work.
In their 2021 paper, ``The Role of Public Relations Firms in
Climate Change Politics,'' Brown University researchers Dr. Robert
Brulle and Carter Werthman reveal that a concentrated group of PR firms
have deep relationships spanning across the oil, gas, coal, rail, and
utility sectors, serving both corporate and trade association clients
in each.\10\ As Brulle and Werthman's paper describes, in some cases
relationships with fossil fuel clients amount to tens or hundreds of
millions of dollars in agency revenues, largely stemming from projects
intended to shape public understanding and discourse about climate
change, and to influence climate policy decisions at local and national
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ R.J. Brulle and C. Werthman, ``The role of public relations
firms in climate change politics,'' Climatic Change 169, 8 (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03244-4.
Brulle and Werthman examined the strategies and tactics that the
most highly utilized PR firms employed in order to help advance the
objectives of their fossil fuel clients, and found that the three most
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
common approaches are:
1. Corporate image promotion. Including greenwashing or corporate
advertising that is meant to convey a socially and
environmentally responsible public image, and therefore
uphold a company's or industry's social license to operate.
2. Third-party mobilization. Including the recruitment of advocates
that echo industry talking points, and the creation of
``astroturf'' groups, or fake grassroots organizations that
simulate the appearance of citizen support for a corporate
position and appear to be led by local community members,
but are often run by PR firms and their corporate or trade-
association clients.
3. Delegitimization of the opposition. Including more divisive
efforts to monitor, surveil, discredit, distract,
intimidate, or smear individuals and groups that oppose the
fossil fuel industry's entrenched positions.
These three strategies can be executed simultaneously to great
effect. For example, in the days surrounding Russia's invasion of
Ukraine, the US fossil fuel industry increased its efforts to promote
oil and gas as a patriotic solution to the war, to engage and enlist
third-party advocates to echo misleading talking points regarding the
reasons for high energy prices, and to attack or delegitimize
proponents of climate policy and renewable energy.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ InfluenceMap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Across an array of platforms including social media, traditional
media, public presentations, investor calls, and direct interactions
with policy makers, the fossil fuel industry and its third-party
advocates framed more drilling and looser regulation as solutions to
energy volatility; falsely claimed that liquefied natural gas (LNG) is
a clean or green energy source; and advocated for policies that had
tenuous connections to the global energy crisis, but were nonetheless
favorable to the industry's policy interests.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Judd Legum and Tesnim Zekeria, ``Fossil fuel companies are
exploiting Russia's attack on Ukraine,'' Popular Information, March 1,
2022, https://popular.info/p/fossil-fuel-companies-are-exploiting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence suggests that the fossil fuel industry's misleading
narratives were greatly amplified through a combination of concentrated
media buys and bot or false amplification activity on social media that
quickly spread misinformation to an even wider audience. According to
research and media organization Media Matters for America, and
misinformation-monitoring organization Triplecheck, misinformation
posts peaked during US climate envoy John Kerry's speech about Ukraine
and climate change on February 21, 2022,\13\ and the top one hundred
misinformation posts yielded 5,205,281 likes, comments, and shares
during a two-week period in February and March (see fig. 3).\14\ During
roughly the same time, 70 percent of climate misinformation retweets
came from bot accounts (see fig. 4).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ John Kerry, ``Implementation Plus: Global Climate Action in
2022,'' Remarks of Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, U.S.
Department of State, American University Cairo, Cairo, Egypt, February
21, 2022, https://www.state.gov/special-presidential-envoy-for-climate-
john-kerry-implementation-plus-global-climate-action-in-2022/.
\14\ Media Matters for America, ``Deep Dive: Top 100 Climate &
Energy Misinformation Posts from September 1, 2021-March 29, 2022,''
April 2022, https://www.mediamatters.org/.
\15\ Triplecheck, ``Climate Misinformation Tracker,'' March 2022.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsOf equal note, Energy Citizens, the astroturf arm of the
American Petroleum Institute (API), ran 761 ads on Facebook between
January 26 and April 1, 2022.\16\ Although the ads included claims that
failed AFP (Agence France-Presse) fact checks,\17\ the group received
19.6 million impressions on the platform. By comparison, in the final
three months of 2021, Energy Citizens ran just sixty-seven similar ads,
which were seen six million times.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ InfluenceMap.
\17\ Rod Lever, ``Posts mislead on factors behind US energy price
spike,'' AFP Fact Check, March 10, 2022, https://factcheck.afp.com/
doc.afp.com.324Q7V7.
\18\ InfluenceMap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US oil and gas sector has always pushed for policies that allow
for new fossil fuel expansion, and against policies that would reduce
demand. But what has changed recently is the intensity of the
industry's pursuits, and the vast resources it deploys through public
relations and lobbying efforts meant to crush potential regulatory
obstacles in its path. While the sector engages in greenwashing to
over-index its reputation on relatively small green commitments, it
uses brute financial force to kill off sustainability initiatives at
state and local levels.
IV. PR-Led Efforts to Obstruct Climate Action at Local and State Levels
A similar scene has played itself out over and over in communities
across America, and the story often ends the same way: Local oil and
gas operations lead to leaks, water contamination, accidents, and
public health problems for the communities living near the industry's
facilities. In response, impacted residents write their
representatives, file complaints, start petitions, and plead with state
lawmakers, regulators, and the courts, asking for tougher safety
restrictions. Their efforts are almost always crushed by fossil fuel-
funded groups with enough money and public relations resources to flood
the zone with countermessaging.
Colorado's Proposition 112 is but one example of the above.\19\
Backed by the local community group Colorado Rising, Prop 112 pressed
the need for setbacks ensuring that new oil and gas wells be located a
half mile away from occupied buildings, playgrounds, schools,
hospitals, and drinking-water sources. But the initiative was outspent
by a factor of more than thirty to one. According to Ballotpedia, six
committees spent $31 million dollars on a sophisticated communications
campaign that included direct mail, television ads, newspaper op-eds,
public debates, and social media posts employing the industry's
familiar three-pronged strategic approach:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Colorado Proposition 112, the Minimum Distance Requirements
for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative, 2018, https://
www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-
2018/97Final.pdf.
1. Image promotion. Television ads, newspaper op-eds, and social
media posts touted the environmental virtues of ``clean
burning'' natural gas and the contributions of fracking to
Colorado's economy and environment--without mentioning the
potentially harmful health impacts of toxic compounds
associated with fracking, the community's related public-
health complaints, the recent bout of deadly fracking-
industry accidents, or the fact that methane is responsible
for five hundred thousand premature deaths annually and 30
percent of the rise in global temperatures since the
Industrial Revolution.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See David Sirota and Chase Woodruff, ``Noble Energy Pumps
Unregulated Cash Into Fight Against 112,'' Westword, October 18, 2018,
https://www.westword.com/news/nobel-energy-finds-way-to-pump-
unregulated-cash-into-fight-against-colorados-proposition-112-10916014;
Doug Conarroe, ``Anti Fracking Doomsday Warnings Full of Gas,'' Daily
Camera, October 11, 2018, https://www.dailycamera.com/2018/10/11/doug-
conarroe-anti-fracking-doomsday-warnings-full-of-gas/; on the dangers
of fracking, see Bruce Finley, ``A dozen fires and explosions at
Colorado oil and gas facilities in 8 months since fatal blast in
Firestone,'' Denver Post, December 6, 2017 at 7:51 p.m., updated
December 19, 2017, https://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/06/colorado-oil-
gas-explosions-since-firestone-explosion/; on methane tracking, see
International Energy Agency, ``Global Methane Tracker 2022,'' https://
www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2022.
2. Third-party mobilization. The fossil fuel industry-funded PAC
Protect Colorado led the opposition campaign and argued the
setbacks would ``devastate our economy, wipe out thousands
of jobs, and endanger our environment.'' \21\ A study by
Common Sense Policy Roundtable, another fossil fuel-funded
group, attacked the science behind the setbacks.\22\
Trusted organizations and individuals--from local hunting
and fishing groups to oil and gas workers--were also
recruited to amplify the message that unfettered fracking
is good for the state, especially for its economy and local
habitats. Paid protesters attended events in order to
physically disrupt Colorado Rising's engagement efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Ballotpedia, ``Colorado Proposition 112, Minimum Distance
Requirements for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative
(2018),'' https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_112,_
Minimum_Distance_Requirements_for_New_Oil,_Gas,_and_Fracking_Projects_
Initiative_(2018).
\22\ The Common Sense Roundtable changed its name to the Common
Sense Institute in June 2020.
3. Delegitimization of the opposition. Prop 112 was framed as ``a
liberal effort to drive a working-class industry--and its
conservative employees--out of the state for good.'' \23\
Activists working at Colorado Rising reported being
monitored, followed, and physically harassed by the paid
protesters.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Julie Turkewitz and Clifford Krauss, ``In Colorado, A Bitter
Battle Over Oil, Gas and the Environment Comes to a Head,'' New York
Times, October 23, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/
colorado-fracking-proposition-112.html.
\24\ Sam Brasch, ``Protests To Slow Signature Efforts: Another
Front In Colorado's Oil And Gas Ballot Battle,'' CPR News, July 26,
2018, https://www.cpr.org/2018/07/26/protests-to-slow-signature-
efforts-another-front-in-colorados-oil-and-gas-ballot-battle/.
Using a similar public relations strategy and playbook to the
tobacco industry, the Colorado oil and gas industry leveraged massive
resources to minimize the hazards of fracking, undermine the related
science, manufacture the appearance of grassroots support, hide behind
trusted local sources, monitor and intimidate detractors, and
manipulate public understanding and discourse about the true issues
driving Prop 112.
In a statement, an oil and gas industry spokesperson framed its
campaign, and specifically its use of paid protesters to physically
stalk Colorado Rising members attempting to collect petition signatures
as, ``exercising our First Amendment rights,'' and defended such
intimidation as ``standard practice in modern campaigns,'' where
``monitoring opposition is important.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Brasch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me be clear: There is nothing standard or ethical about these
practices. They are deceptive communications practices that mislead our
citizenry and undermine our democracy.
Just as ordinary citizens do not possess the specialized knowledge
needed to detect the myriad factual omissions and distortions occurring
in most ``green'' fossil fuel ads, they also do not have the financial
resources required to make their voices heard over the industry's
extensive lobbying and public relations efforts. By architecting and
executing the strategies and tactics described above on behalf of their
oil and gas clients, certain public relations firms are not exercising
first amendment rights. They are not helping to ensure that business,
government, and citizens all have a seat at the table. Rather, they are
suppressing these outcomes. They are helping prevent an informed
populace from participating in a robust national climate conversation,
and corresponding climate action.
Climate disinformation is not merely an ethical problem. At this
scale, it arguably constitutes a calculated fraud on the public, and
the harm caused to individuals, society, and the environment is no less
grave than the harm caused by personal fraud. In the abstract to his
forthcoming paper, ``Disinformation and the First Amendment,'' Barry
University School of Law professor Wes Henricksen argues: ``If we
continue to permit unfettered fraud on the public, the result will
likely be the continued growth and spread of knowingly false claims to
the public at large, further damaging public health and the
environment, poisoning political discourse, and generating further
attacks on democracy.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Wes Henricksen, ``Disinformation and the First Amendment:
Fraud on the Public (2022),'' abstract, St. John's Law Review, http://
dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3860211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Addressing the Harms Caused by Misleading PR Campaigns
The implications of climate disinformation on our country and world
should guide the PR industry's next steps. We know that, like tobacco
and firearms, fossil fuels are lethal products that contribute to
almost nine million pollution-related deaths annually.\27\ We know that
fossil fuel marketers have a demonstrable history of misleading people
about climate change and solutions. We know that the nature and
prevalence of climate disinformation are worsening, and that the end
result is suppressed climate action, and its dire, inevitable
consequences. And, finally, we know that fossil fuel marketers will
continue to categorically deny all wrongdoing, characterizing climate
lawsuits as ``frivolous,'' \28\ and the profound body of evidence
against them as ``misleading and without merit.'' \29\ They will likely
never alter course of their own volition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Karn Vohra et al., ``Global mortality from outdoor fine
particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from
GEOS-Chem,'' Environmental Research 195 (April 2021): 110754, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.110754.
\28\ Chevron statement, quoted in David Sherfinski, ``Fossil fuel
firms face new challenge over `greenwashing' ads,'' Reuters, June 22,
2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fossilfuel-climate-change-
adverti/fossil-fuel-firms-face-new-challenge-over-greenwashing-ads-
idUSKCN2DZ 00B.
\29\ Exxon statement, quoted in Matt Egan, ``Pro-fossil fuel
Facebook ads were viewed 431 million times--in 1 year,'' CNN Business,
August 5, 2021, https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/business/facebook-
fossil-fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the real questions for communications practitioners
supporting fossil fuel clients, and for this Committee are: How will we
manage these risks? How will we account for past damage done? What will
we do to guard against future damage? When will we live up to Wes
Henricksen's call: ``Those with the power to speak to the public have a
responsibility to do so in good faith and without causing undue harm.''
\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Wes Henriksen profile page, SSRN, https://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_ id=2642213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The need for climate accountability is urgent, and the road map for
change is right in front of us. A majority of Americans want to see oil
and gas companies held to account for their deceptions.\31\ A bill to
eradicate the federal tax deduction for fossil fuel advertising has
been introduced. Communications-industry trade bodies, including the
Institute for Advertising Ethics, are working on new greenwashing
standards. Thousands of marketing practitioners have signaled their
desire to help end deceptive practices, and our country's top social
scientists have given us the applicable research, tools, and
frameworks.\32\ All we need to do is find the political will to act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Natasha Grzincic and Anya Zoledziowski, ``45% of Americans
Don't Believe Humans Cause Climate Change, VICE News/Guardian Poll
Shows,'' Vice News, October 26, 2021, https://www.vice.com/en/article/
qjbd9m/vice-guardian-poll-americans-climate-change-man-made-climate-
crimes.
\32\ Nemes et al.
Thank you.
Acknowledgements and Disclosures
KR Foundation funded the research and analysis upon which the
Russia-Ukraine war-related portion of this testimony is based. I am
currently collaborating with the Institute for Advertising Ethics, a
501c3 nonprofit, to help develop educational resources related to
greenwashing, including two upcoming symposiums in September and
October 2022 discussing urgent issues and needed next steps for public
relations and advertising practitioners. I prepared this statement, on
my own personal time, with the assistance of Kathryn Shedrick. I
declare no conflicts of interest.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Christine Arena, CEO and Founder,
Generous Ventures, Inc., San Francisco, California
Questions Submitted by Representative Porter
Question 1. The groups publicly registered as opposing Proposition
112 reported spending $31 million against the Colorado ballot measure.
$26 million of that money came from just one front group--Protect
Colorado--which was created and funded by Anadarko Petroleum and Noble
Energy. As a PR professional, what could a client get with such a
quantity of money? What activities could it procure?
Answer. A budget of $31 million for a single market campaign is
quite extensive and buys a client the ability to elevate its interests
far above community voices. Typically, such a budget would result in
highly produced television advertisements amplified by large national
and local media buys, and supplemented by social content, sponsored
content, newspaper op-eds, events, direct mail, outreach to journalists
in order to influence future stories, and more. While lobbying is not a
standard public relations activity, a political PR firm could leverage
those resources to influence state legislators and tilt the public
narrative toward the interests of its client through third-party
mobilization efforts.
In the case of Protect Colorado, television advertisements had a
lower production quality, meaning they were likely less expensive to
produce than the higher calibre creative work we typically see produced
for corporate or brand clients spending at this level. However, agency
fees for strategic messaging and campaign execution--including the
recruitment and management of third-party individuals and groups, as
well as payments to those third parties--would be major line items in
the budget.
Question 2. How would you specifically define the terms
``greenwashing,'' ``misinformation,'' ``disinformation,'' and any other
key terms relating to the subject of this hearing?
Answer. Greenwashing, misinformation, and disinformation are
closely related terms, yet there are key distinguishing factors that
set them apart, particularly in the context of fossil fuel industry
communications.
Greenwashing refers to messaging that produces false positive
perceptions of a company's or industry's environmental performance. The
hallmarks of greenwashing include a significant gap between words and
actions--or green claims versus green investments and business
practices--as well as the omission of facts related to the risks of
fossil fuel products.
For example, 65 percent of Exxon's public messaging contains a
green claim, while just 8 percent of its capital expenditures are
devoted to low-carbon activities. Similarly, 49 percent of Chevron's
public messaging contains a green claim, while only 5 percent of its
capital expenditures are devoted to low-carbon activities.\1\ Neither
Exxon's nor Chevron's advertisements disclose the fact that the burning
of fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change, and both
companies have been criticized by shareholders for failing to fully
disclose methane emissions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ InfluenceMap, ``Big Oil's Real Agenda on Climate Change,''
September 2022: 7-9, https://influencemap.org/report/Big-Oil-s-Agenda-
on-Climate-Change-2022-19585.
\2\ Ceres, ``Chevron's investors call for improved methane
disclosures in a near-unanimous vote,'' May 25, 2022, https://
www.ceres.org/news-center/press-releases/chevrons-investors-call-
improved-methane-disclosures-near-unanimous-vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The functional role of greenwashing is to divert attention from the
questionable environmental records of fossil fuel companies. The
practice is widespread as 60 percent of oil supermajor public
communications are found to contain a green claim.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ InfluenceMap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misinformation refers to false information that contradicts climate
science, but that is not necessarily intentionally spread in order to
mislead the public. Often, misinformation originates from individuals
or groups that may be predisposed to certain cognitive biases, but that
are not paid or incentivized to spread such false information by an
industry entity.
On the other hand, disinformation is false information that both
contradicts climate science, and is intentionally spread in order to
mislead people for profit or political gain. Disinformation often
originates directly from fossil fuel industry groups, or from
individuals or organizations that are funded by fossil fuel interests.
It includes distinct messaging and tactical themes, several of which
were discussed during the September 14th hearing.
From a messaging perspective, disinformation includes both climate
denial rhetoric--such as the false notion that the science of climate
change is ``still uncertain''--as well as climate delay rhetoric--such
as the false notions that individual consumers rather than polluting
corporations are responsible for climate action, or that fossil fuels
are a ``climate solution.''
From a tactical perspective, disinformation also includes some of
the activities described in my written testimony as well as in the
House Natural Resources Committee Staff Hearing Report's references to
third-party mobilization and delegitimization of the opposition
strategies. The hiring of fake protesters, the use of proxy individuals
or astroturf groups that fabricate community support for a corporate
position, and the intimidation, harassment or surveillance of local
community members are clear examples of disinformation tactics. Not
only are false narratives effectively spread via these tactics, but the
funding sources behind them are deliberately concealed.
The purpose of fossil fuel industry-funded disinformation is to
suppress the truth, manipulate public opinion, foster division, and
obstruct climate action. As Dr. Melissa Aronczyk mentioned in her oral
statement, these disinformation tactics are carried out by certain PR
firms, and ``they are not publicized, they are not transparent, and
they are not regulated.''
Question 3. Is there anything else you would like to add for the
hearing record?
Answer. While greenwashing is a widespread problem, with many PR
firms and advertising agencies producing greenwash on behalf of their
clients, disinformation is less widespread. The disinformation tactics
described above are utilized by a small minority of bad actors who
represent a risk to consumers and the advertising industry.
Advertising industry non-profits and trade bodies including the
Institute for Advertising Ethics and the Public Relations Society of
America clearly state: ``Advertising, public relations, marketing
communications, news, and editorial all share a common objective of
truth and high ethical standards in serving the public,'' \4\ and:
``advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information is
essential to serving the public interest and contributing to informed
decision making in a democratic society.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Institute for Advertising Code of Ethics: https://
www.iaethics.org/principles-and-practices.
\5\ Public Relations Society of America Code of Ethics: https://
www.prsa.org/about/ethics/prsa-code-of-ethics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some advertising industry groups are engaged in a conversation
about the risks and dangers of greenwash and disinformation, seeking to
elevate the issue and help curb the problem. However, the most
offending PR firms, practitioners, and fossil fuel clients are unlikely
to alter course of their own volition. That is why enforceable
mechanisms for accountability and disclosure around the risks of fossil
fuel products and the funding sources behind third-party mobilization
efforts are needed.
______
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
Dr. Melissa Aronczyk, Associate Professor for the School of
Communications & Information at Rutgers University.
STATEMENT OF MELISSA ARONCZYK, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF
COMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, BROOKLYN, NEW
YORK
Dr. Aronczyk. Chair Porter, Ranking Member Moore, and
members of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
today about the role of public relations firms in preventing
action on climate change.
My name is Melissa Aronczyk. I am an Associate Professor at
Rutgers University and the co-author of the book, ``A Strategic
Nature: Public Relations and the Politics of American
Environmentalism,'' published by Oxford University Press
earlier this year.
The central finding of our research for this book is that
the public relations industry has for several decades been a
major actor in the strategy, planning, and execution of
campaigns for the fossil fuel industry to influence what we
know and how we act on environmental issues.
I would like to make three points today.
My first point is that public relations for fossil fuel
companies is about much more than messaging or marketing. PR
firms often say that they are merely facilitating or amplifying
their clients' ideas or information. In fact, PR is not only
communicating ideas and information, but coming up with those
ideas and creating that information. They also create
opportunities for that information to circulate, while actively
downplaying or de-legitimizing information that does not
support their strategy.
Despite the label of ``public relations,'' PR firms target
multiple stakeholders behind the scenes at local, state, and
Federal levels, attempting to indirectly influence citizens,
journalists, and policymakers. A New York Times investigation
in 2020 revealed that the firm FTI Consulting was behind fake
grassroots groups, including Texans for Natural Gas, the Arctic
Energy Center, and the Main Street Investors Coalition. These
appear as local efforts to speak out on energy issues. Rather,
they are groups funded by oil and gas companies, manufactured
and run by PR firms to provide the illusion of support for the
fossil fuel industry.
My second point today is that public relations coordinates
strategies and distributes risk across fossil fuel sectors. PR
firms share intelligence and coordinate strategies across
sectors including petroleum, natural gas, chemicals and
pesticides, and mining. They then coordinate coalitions from
members of these sectors to collectively counter action on
environmental problems. These strategies are not publicized,
they are not transparent, and they are not regulated.
PR firms often represent these coalitions in public or
informal settings, such as congressional hearings, to minimize
the risk to their client's reputation. Because this coordinated
infrastructure of anti-environmental action operates behind the
scenes, members of the public and lawmakers have no way of
knowing if the support for fossil fuel production is real or
manufactured.
My third and final point today is that PR has influenced
public opinion and policymaking on environmental problems for
over 50 years. This is one of the most striking findings in my
research. Industry reports from at least the early 1970s
document how PR firms conducted pro-industry campaigns to
downplay public health and environmental risks. Today, some of
those same PR firms working for the same industry clients are
using the same strategies to distort our understanding of the
impacts of climate change.
Evidence for the existence of these long-term PR strategies
comes from the millions of internal corporate documents
publicly disclosed during litigation against the tobacco
industry in the 1990s. In those documents, we clearly see how
instrumental the role of PR firms has been in preventing the
public and lawmakers from acting to protect the environment.
We have a record of compromising behavior by specific PR
firms, with devastating effects on the health and welfare of
the American people. But until now, the PR firms themselves
have remained out of sight. Today's hearing allows us to
broaden our understanding of PR firms' accountability when it
comes to downplaying the threat of climate change and the role
of their clients in causing it. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Aronczyk follows:]
Prepared Statement of Melissa M. Aronczyk, PhD Associate Professor,
School of Communication & Information, Rutgers University
Chair Porter, Ranking Member Moore, and members of the U.S. House
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the
role of public relations firms in preventing action on climate change.
My name is Melissa Aronczyk. I am an associate professor at Rutgers
University in the School of Communication & Information. I am the co-
author of a book titled, A Strategic Nature: Public Relations and the
Politics of American Environmentalism, published by Oxford University
Press in January of this year.\1\ The central finding of our research
for this book is that the public relations industry has, for several
decades, been a major actor in the strategy, planning, and execution of
campaigns to influence public opinion and policymaking around
environmental issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Melissa Aronczyk and Maria I. Espinoza, A Strategic Nature:
Public Relations and the Politics of American Environmentalism. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed the history of American public relations can be seen as a
history of battles over how to control high-stakes environmental
problems. It began in the early twentieth century, when monopoly
companies in environmentally compromising industries like rail, steel
and coal faced opposition from Americans worried about their size and
power. Corporate public relations emerged from this concern, charged
with a mission to restore the public image of these companies.\2\ Many
pre-World War II public relations campaigns focused on downplaying the
environmental harms caused by corporations in their communities such as
air and water pollution or waste management. In the second half of the
twentieth century, as Americans became more and more aware of the
ecological harm caused by extractive industries, corporations became
symbols of destruction and targets for political reform.\3\ Again,
public relations counsel played instrumental roles in restoring a
positive reputation to companies and their activities, emphasizing
their contributions to society and downplaying their harmful
environmental impact in public, in the courts, and in government
forums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Roland Marchand, Creating the Corporate Soul: The Rise of
Public Relations and Corporate Imagery in American Big Business.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
\3\ David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of
Business in America. New York: Basic Books, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, many public relations firms working for fossil fuel
interests actively prevent public awareness and government action on
climate change. And they are using many of the same strategies they
developed decades ago.
To understand how these strategies have been developed and
executed, I examined company and trade association archives,
congressional hearing transcripts, professional journals, and industry
reports. My co-author and I conducted approximately 75 one-on-one
interviews with public relations counselors, industry representatives,
strategic communications experts, government representatives, and
environmental advocates; and attended industry and professional
association events. My statement is drawn from this material.
I would like to make three major points about the role of public
relations firms in preventing action on climate change.
1. Public relations for fossil fuel companies is about much more than
messaging or marketing.
PR firms working for fossil fuel interests act in many roles and do
much more than merely communicate their clients' intentions to the
public in media campaigns such as advertisements or commercials. Over
the last five decades, PR firms representing fossil fuel clients have
also been responsible for tasks such as planning and hosting public
events for clients and their supporters; monitoring and countering
legislative and regulatory attempts to control environmental problems;
creating pro-industry coalitions and front groups to give the
appearance of multiple sources of support for fossil fuel production;
and surveilling and delegitimizing groups and organizations that
support action on environmental and health problems including climate
change.
Public relations is not just about marketing or advertising. My
research into PR firms working for fossil fuel companies shows that
they engage in strategic and long-term planning, provide ongoing
counseling and representation, and conduct opposition research and
targeting on behalf of their clients. Public relations firms often
present themselves and their work in terms of facilitating or
amplifying ideas or information. In fact, public relations is not only
communicating ideas and information but coming up with those ideas and
creating that information. They also create opportunities for that
information to circulate, while actively downplaying information that
does not support their strategy.
Public relations is also not just about reaching public audiences.
Despite the label of ``public'' relations, PR firms target multiple
stakeholders behind the scenes at local, state and federal levels,
including citizens, journalists and policymakers. Distinctions among
the business of public relations, public affairs, lobbying, and
advocacy are often not observed in practice.
Another reason that public relations is such a broad system of
influence has to do with the kinds of tactics it uses. For instance,
so-called ``astroturf'' lobbying is a practice whereby public relations
counselors manufacture the illusion of grassroots support, sometimes by
mobilizing and managing local constituencies that are sponsored and
funded by the PR firm's fossil fuel clients. The PR firm then uses
these constituencies to participate in media campaigns, on-the-ground
events, and public policy forums.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Edward T. Walker, Grassroots for Hire: Public Affairs
Consultants in American Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A New York Times investigation in 2020 revealed an instance of
astroturf lobbying in the fossil fuel industry. The New York Times
found that the PR firm FTI Consulting was behind the grassroots groups
Texans for Natural Gas, the Arctic Energy Center, and the Main Street
Investors Coalition. These appear as ``separate efforts to amplify
local voices or speak up for local people''; but rather they are ``part
of a network of corporate influence campaigns designed, staffed and at
times run by FTI Consulting, hired by some of the largest oil and gas
companies in the world to help them promote fossil fuels.''
In sum, public relations firms working for fossil fuel companies
can engage in a broad spectrum of activities with considerable
influence in the public and political sphere.
2. Public relations for fossil fuel companies coordinates strategies
and distributes risk across industries.
Public relations plays a very important coordinating role across
industries and sectors. Unlike trade groups, which are limited in scope
to a single trade or sector; or chambers of commerce, which are
restricted to their constituency, PR practitioners move freely among
different trades, issues, and geographies. They maintain multiple
affiliations and coordinate across them. They build expertise and
knowledge about how environmental problems affect different industries
and regions and transfer this knowledge across their client base.
This flexibility allows PR firms to remain hidden in the process of
advocacy. PR counselors can engage in intelligence-gathering about
political action on several environmental issues and share it across
different industries. They coordinate across multiple companies and
sectors involved in fossil fuel production and develop broad strategies
to counter action on environmental problems as they evolve. These
strategies are not publicized, they are not transparent, and they are
not regulated.
Furthermore, public relations firms are embedded in a wide network
of influence. They may represent not only a fossil fuel company but
also the trade association to which that company belongs; or they may
develop their client's strategy in tandem with industry councils or
organizational boards that the fossil fuel company client belongs to.
Those groups in turn will support and execute the PR strategy for
different audiences. This allows individual companies to minimize the
reputational and financial risk of speaking out against climate action
in public or in formal settings such as congressional hearings. Because
this coordinated infrastructure of anti-environmental action is
operating behind the scenes, members of the public and lawmakers have
no way of knowing if the campaigns operating on behalf of fossil fuels
are real or manufactured. These activities not only reduce citizens'
trust in the political process; they distort democratic discourse.
3. Public relations for fossil fuel companies has worked to influence
public opinion and policymaking around environmental problems
for over fifty years.
One of the most striking findings in my research is the continuity
of strategies developed and executed by public relations firms for
fossil fuel industries. The playbook used by public relations firms
today to influence public opinion and political action on climate
change was developed at least fifty years ago. Industry reports from
the early 1970s document how public relations firms provided so-called
``economic education programs'' to help industry clients convey the
value of their products to the American people. At the same time, these
firms were engaging in such activities as: conducting opposition
research to counter regulatory and legislative action; using key
intelligence-gathering contacts in government agencies and other
organizations that that influence public policy on environmental and
energy issues; and conducting pro-industry media campaigns and public
campaigns that downplayed the health and environmental risks of climate
change.
Much of the evidence for the existence of these long-term PR
strategies comes from the millions of internal corporate documents
publicly disclosed during litigation against the tobacco industry in
the 1990s. The reason these documents are so relevant to today's
hearing is reflected in the three points I have made today. Many of the
public relations firms that created strategies for tobacco companies to
downplay the impact of their products in the 1980s and 1990s are
applying those same strategies now on behalf of fossil fuel clients. We
have a record of compromising behavior by specific public relations
firms, with devastating effects on the health and welfare of the
American people. But until now, the PR firms themselves have remained
out of sight. Today's hearing allows us to broaden our understanding of
PR firms' accountability when it comes to downplaying the threat of
climate change and the role of their clients in causing it.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Melissa Aronczyk, Associate
Professor, Rutgers University
Questions Submitted by Representative Porter
Question 1. As a researcher, you study the ``grassroots'' groups--
commonly referred to as ``astroturf''--that PR firms help the fossil
fuel industry assemble to oppose the policies they don't like. How
would you describe the difference between true grassroots groups and
astroturf groups such as these?
Answer. Grassroots advocacy is a style of organizing and mobilizing
groups of previously unorganized constituencies to have a voice in
decisions that affect them. As the term ``grassroots'' suggests, this
organizing is considered to be a ``bottom up'' approach, a ``weapon of
the weak'' that brings ordinary citizens into the political process.\1\
Many analysts consider the grassroots advocacy of 1960s American
public-interest groups to be a model for contemporary organizing to
allow citizens to speak out and enact change on major legislative and
regulatory issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Walker, Edward. Grassroots for Hire: Public Affairs Consultants
in American Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1970s and 1980s, business groups began emulating the tactics
of grassroots advocacy, using public relations firms to create and
manage top-down ``subsidized publics'' that are financed by their
corporate clients.\2\ These subsidized publics, known today as
``astroturf'' groups, appear as bottom-up or local citizens'
initiatives, but use industry resources to develop ``a coherence,
focus, and elevated profile that they would not have on their own.\3\
As a chief Washington lobbyist for Ford Motor Company put it, ``We've
taken a page out of the public-interest lobby by using our local people
to influence Senators and Congressmen.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid.
\3\ William K. Carroll, ed. Regime of Obstruction: How Corporate
Power Blocks Energy Democracy. Edmonton, AB: AU Press, 2021, p. 199.
\4\ Peter H. Stone, ``Learning from Nader,'' National Journal, 6
November 1994: 1342-1344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some cases, astroturf groups are not even subsidized publics but
are rather empty vessels. For instance, a website may promote the
existence of a citizens' group that does not in fact exist. More often,
astroturf groups are made up of sponsored actors. The actors may be
either professionals (paid operatives), client employees, or ordinary
individuals who have been mobilized by the group's efforts online or in
person. There may also be unpaid non-affiliated individuals or groups
who associate themselves with the astroturf group. Some professional
public relations firms today promote their specialization in astroturf
lobbying. The PR/lobbying firm Bonner & Associates, founded in 1984,
was among the first to specialize exclusively in astroturf lobbying for
corporations and trade associations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Stephen Engelberg, ``A New Breed of Hired Hands Cultivates
Grass-Roots Anger.'' New York Times, 17 March 1993. https://
www.nytimes.com/1993/03/17/us/a-new-breed-of-hired-hands-cultivates-
grass-roots-anger.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standard register of these groups' communication is populist
and community-based. For example, an astroturf group sponsored by the
American Petroleum Institute, called Energy Citizens, has as its logo,
``Citizens Like You--Raising Their Voices.'' The populist register in
which many of these groups and campaigns operate is effective in
organizing unaffilated individuals and mobilizing them for political
action. For this reason, it is important not to dismiss them merely as
``fake'' groups but also to examine how they attempt to create cultural
and political legitimacy for fossil fuels.
For example, the New York Times reported on the astroturf group,
Fueling U.S. Forward, which is sponsored by Koch Industries. This
astroturf group hosted a gospel concert for local residents in
Richmond, Virginia; participated in a training session for Black civil
service employees; and offered scholarships to students at local
schools.\6\ These are real events, with real people; but the motives
are disingenuous, entirely oriented toward promoting fossil fuels and
the companies that produce them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Hiroko Tabuchi, Sensing Gains Ahead under Trump, the Kochs
Court Minorities. New York Times, 5 January 2017. https://
www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/business/energy-environment/koch-brothers-
fossil-fuels-minorities.html?_r=0.
See also Camille Vargas, ``Fossil Fuel Advocacy Campaign Offers
Scholarships to African-American Students.'' The Daily Tar Heel, 6
March 2017. https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2017/03/fossil-fuel-
organization-provides-scholarships-to-rural-african-american-
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key distinction that needs to be made is that subsidized speech
is not free speech. The lack of transparency of so-called ``subsidized
publics,'' that is, astroturf groups, interferes with the political
process and the formation of public opinion.
Question 2. How do the tactics used by PR firms and outlined
throughout the hearing and in the Committee's report constitute climate
disinformation? How could we improve transparency so that the public
better understands where this information is coming from?
Answer. Greenwashing is a prominent and highly problematic form of
climate disinformation. Greenwashing can be defined as attempts by
industry groups to make their products or practices seem more
environmentally friendly than they really are. Public relations firms
and advertising agencies have been responsible for crafting promotional
campaigns for their fossil fuel clients that engage in greenwashing in
the following ways (among many others):
minimizing, omitting, and/or reframing key information
about firm-level or industry-level commitments to action on
climate change;
downplaying or diminishing the role of the firm or
industry in climate change;
widening gaps between climate-related pledges to national
or international climate agreements (e.g., the 2015 Paris
Agreement) and actual actions;
promoting technologies or innovations to mitigate climate
change that are unproven or underdeveloped (e.g., not
scalable to industry-level needs);
promoting ``scenarios'' for climate mitigation that
downplay the industry's accountability;
creating and deploying industry-based metrics or
certification (i.e., voluntary regulation) while acting
against formal regulatory frameworks;
creating public-private partnerships with environmental
groups to build brand reputation without engaging formally
in climate action;
promoting alternative approaches to fossil fuel production
while hiding the presence of ongoing business models that
rely on fossil fuel production.
Greenwashing is a particularly insidious form of climate
disinformation because it relies on misleading or deceptive rhetorical
tactics that obscure the causes and consequences of climate change for
the public.
The public relations and advertising industries are largely
unregulated industries. This is one reason fossil fuel companies rely
on them to create information and influence campaigns. A second reason
is that these firms operate largely behind the scenes. Most ordinary
citizens are unfamiliar with the workings or even the names of major
public relations firms and advertising agencies. The lack of
transparency is a major reason that oil and gas companies look to PR to
help them fight their battles.
The public and policymakers have a right to know who is behind the
strategies, groups and campaigns that are organized and managed by
public relations firms, ad agencies, and other third-party enablers. To
avoid a distorting influence on the communication and understanding of
climate change impacts, groups and campaigns funded by oil and gas
companies should be required to disclose this funding as well as the
names of the third parties involved in brand-building, strategy, and
message amplification.
PR firms are experts in the business when it comes to long-term
planning and strategy to promote industry viewpoints. For over 50
years, PR firms have developed strategies to deny, delay action, or sow
doubt about climate change. They can coordinate across industry sectors
like oil and gas, chemicals and pesticides, mining because they have
had clients in all of those sectors. Many of the same PR firms are
using the same strategies for the same clients 50 years later.
Regulating the norms and practices of public relations and
advertising for fossil-fuel clients would be one important step to
improve transparency so that the public and policymakers understand the
motivations behind climate change messaging. A second step would be to
regulate what kinds of claims are allowable and which should be
disallowed in promotional communication. Unproven technologies,
misleading claims, or other distorted attempts to build brand
reputation at the expense of accurate messaging should be regulated to
limit climate disinformation.
Question 3. In your research, you have identified deceptive
rhetorical framing and tactics commonly used by PR firms on behalf of
their fossil fuel clients to undermine critics. Did you observe any of
these rhetorical tactics being used during the hearing?
Answer. During the hearing I heard a lot of anti-climate rhetoric
from opposing committee members. I was struck by how their rhetoric
echoed anti-environmental frames that PR firms have used for over 50
years to promote fossil fuel clients. They are used to undermine
positions of support for climate action; and they have had a long-term
effect on how the public is misinformed about the role of fossil fuels
in American society. My co-author and I describe each of these frames
in our book, A Strategic Nature: Public Relations and the Politics of
American Environmentalism (Oxford University Press, 2022). I list here
11 of the frames, with quotes taken verbatim from the hearing, for the
record:
i. Fear.
[In reference to a ballot initiative regarding Proposition 112 in
Colorado]: ``Your agenda, if carried to its logical conclusion, would
involve the people of Colorado rubbing their hands together to stay
warm. And in the coming winter months and with natural gas prices at a
14 year high and getting higher, they just might have to do that now.''
``When you have sources like wind and solar that aren't reliable in
the sense that they're either spiky or they have times of the day when
they when they aren't working, it makes the grid more fragile. It is
less resilient. It is unstable. And you will see things like blackouts,
brownouts, or in some cases, a complete failure.''
``I experienced the blackouts in February 2020 at a time when the
weather conditions in Montana were about 20 below zero. And the folks
in Texas were experiencing the same types of issues, and we witnessed
the near collapse of the entire power grid.''
``If you want to see devastating consequences for the environment,
see a grid collapse. See what that looks like when people are then
burning whatever they can get their hands on to heat their homes or to
cook food.''
``Raul. A welder. He was the son of migrant workers who worked for
ancillary support services for the oil and gas industry. He worked with
his two sons. It was all about opportunity, jobs, future growth for him
and his family. If that [ballot initiative] had passed, it's likely his
livelihood would have been shut down.
ii. Tradeoffs between the economy and the environment.
``A single working mom sees her electricity bills skyrocket. Her
power is shut off. It affects her quality of life. That's a trade off.
Are we willing to do that to our fellow citizens?''
``It is costing families more and more to buy groceries from eggs
to the cost of bacon, to fill up our gas tanks and keep the lights on
at home.''
``Natural gas and oil supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in
Colorado, approximately 235,000 jobs. And your ultimate goal? To impose
a fracking ban on our state threatens to destroy our economy and
compromise our energy independence.''
Speaker to witness: ``In your opinion, what would happen if the
United States just stopped producing oil and gas, like many of these
activist groups are clamoring for. What would happen?''
Witness response: ``It'd be catastrophic. I'll tell you what. You
wouldn't have this hearing today. Civilization, the economy, as we know
it, would certainly collapse.''
``We're in a situation now where one fourth of all Americans--one
fourth of all Americans in this country--are in a situation where they
have to decide if they're going to cover groceries, if they're going to
cover health care costs, or if they're going to pay their utility
bills. We're seeing record inflation and it's a result of what's
happening, this, right here. Respondents who forgo necessary expenses,
such as medicine or food, in order to pay an energy bill.''
iii. Speaking for the public.
``When we elevate the voices of hardworking Americans, it paints a
stark picture of the increasing cost of daily life in our country.''
iv. Rational vs emotional actors.
``Any time you hear another voice . . . even if you disagree with
it . . . it's simply somebody in the public arena having a debate. You
don't like those people. I get it. But that doesn't mean we don't have
valid concerns . . . it's not disinformation just because you don't
agree with it . . . public policy organizations like mine [the John
Locke Foundation], all we do is provide you the information. What you
do with it is up to you. But we provide you the information so you can
make sound public policy decisions.''
``I think one thing that's important to note is that we can have
free speech and stop the spread of disinformation if we stop with the
grandstanding and just get to sensible policymaking.''
v. Everyday life.
``Think about the last two years with COVID. How many single-use
syringes were necessary? And those come from . . . those were plastic
that you could dispose of. That's fossil fuels. The helmet that your
your child wears in any sports activity. I had a bike accident a couple
of years ago. A fossil fuel-based helmet saved my life. Glasses saved
my eyes. It's in everything. They are in everything.''
vi. Truth/Facts.
``American voters deserve access to the facts so they can decide
for themselves, and our First Amendment ensures that they can.''
``Data doesn't lie, and the facts show that this administration's
energy policies are pushing people into poverty, are pushing jobs
overseas.''
``I recognize the importance of sharing how the daily lives of
Americans were impacted by misguided policies. We want truth. All of us
want truth out there.''
vii. Delay.
``It's been demonstrated factually that the world is going to need
oil and gas products for decades to come, not only for our energy, but
because of all the byproducts that are also generated by each and every
one of these.''
viii. Domestic security.
``Thanks to American's innovative and entrepreneurial spirit, we've
demonstrated we can develop our resources wisely, provide clean, safe
power, and be energy dominant free from independence on hostile regimes
that may threaten our national security.''
``We have a global . . . gas catastrophic event going on in Ukraine
right now with Russia, the evil empire that they are. So they have to
then go away from that, the energy there. And so they go back to coal .
. . And I just want to help us avoid that.''
``Could you describe the benefits of having oil and gas produced
here in the United States with the highest environmental standards and
labor standards, rather than imported countries like Russia, Iran and
Venezuela?''
ix. Not me but you.
``When the Majority of this Committee starts trying to intimidate
people into not bragging about their products . . . '' [vs. fossil fuel
companies intimidating environmental activists].
``Let's be clear on who's misleading the American people. The Biden
administration, acting as though their energy strategies are resulting
in lower emissions and addressing climate change'' [vs. fossil fuel
companies misleading consumers].
x. Free speech.
``. . . Today's approach by Democrats threatens the exercise of
First Amendment rights . . . The ability to exercise political speech
ensures all viewpoints are represented in policy debates. The Supreme
Court goes to great lengths to protect speech, especially speech
related to public issues . . . This committee should be wary of any
attempt to stifle the exercise of free speech, regardless of whether or
not the majority agrees with the viewpoint. The American people deserve
better than a hearing intended to chill speech or salvage a botched
investigation.''
``Americans, including those in the energy and environmental policy
space, are rightfully troubled by the growing threat that their speech
will be shut down by those who sit in politically powerful positions.''
xi. Threat of Socialism/Communism (China).
``Ms. Foster, your America Last Socialist Organization has
repeatedly attempted to hit the oil and gas industry in Colorado,
including through ballot initiatives.''
``Why isn't the committee issuing subpoenas for PR firms that offer
support for the climate change lobby, like the Sierra Club, who has
repeatedly assured us that the genocidal Chinese Communist Party, even
while they murder millions of people in concentration camps, is
actually quite interested in working with the Democrats' climate change
agenda?''
``It would be helpful if people weren't misled about electric cars.
They are generally more expensive. We're going to have so much lithium
batteries that we won't know what to do with it. It's going to be a
huge problem. We're having to buy so much from China with regard to
rare earth metals, but you can't make a vehicle without some fossil
fuels.''
``. . . as we speak here today, China is in the process of making
fifty--50!--of the largest coal plants in the world. With no
protections . . . They obviously are not concerned with climate change.
They are not concerned with polluting the world. And obviously, we
right here are not concerned with them doing that either. We have the
cleanest coal in the world and we have witnesses here today who can't
even determine if they would prefer natural gas over coal.''
______
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Amy O. Cooke, Chief Executive
Officer for the John Locke Foundation.
STATEMENT OF AMY O. COOKE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JOHN LOCKE
FOUNDATION, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Ms. Cooke. Chair Porter and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to be with you today and to
provide some comments. My name is Amy Cooke. I am the CEO of
the John Locke Foundation, a state-based free market think tank
headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Prior to joining Locke, I held various positions, including
directing energy and environmental policy to a sister think
tank in Colorado. I have a journalism degree from the
University of Missouri Columbia and a master's degree in
American history from the University of Northern Colorado.
Love for the First Amendment drew me to journalism. Fear of
losing it drew me to public policy. I agree with Jimmy Lai, a
newspaper publisher currently imprisoned by the Chinese
Government for advocating for democracy. He said, ``More
information is freedom.'' Americans, including those in the
energy and environmental policy space, are rightfully troubled
by the growing threat that their speech will be shut down by
those who sit in politically powerful positions.
My expertise is energy policy, and what I have found in
over a decade of energy policy research is that all debates
distill down to trade-offs. It is the responsibility of public
policy organizations, such as mine, to tell the truth about
those trade-offs, putting a face on those trade-offs so that
people, including media influencers, legislators, voters, and
the general public have all the information they need to make
informed public policy decisions.
I have been on the ground working with those who have
concerns and stories to tell regarding these trade-offs. They
have a right to tell their story, and the public has a right to
hear them, but they are often shut out or marginalized by
legacy media, Big Tech, and government.
And as an example, let's just take the regulatory space at
the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Insiders have
stakeholder meetings that include only themselves, not
ratepayers. They enter into a settlement that forces ratepayers
to pay more, greatly impacting their families and businesses.
And that is why I got involved in a utility's carbon reduction
plan at the PUC. A small group of businesses felt that their
voice wasn't being heard by the very commission that is
supposed to represent them. The barriers to entry in a
regulatory proceeding are quite high: a challenging filing
system, lack of affordable counsel and witnesses. And for the
privilege of petitioning your government, it can cost hundreds
of thousands of dollars to do so in a meaningful way.
Another example is a ballot measure I worked on. There were
decent, hard-working Coloradoans who wanted voters to know what
a de facto ban on hydraulic fracturing would do to their
livelihoods, their families, their businesses, and communities.
We provided an outlet for people like Raul, a welder, and a
young female firefighter, just to tell their stories. And they
explained what the trade-off of a 2,500-foot setback would look
like for them.
And in a recent energy policy debate at North Carolina, we
didn't argue about the policy of zero carbon. Instead, we
provided expert analysis for the most efficient and reliable
way to get there. Our report supplied the foundational building
blocks for what ultimately became the final version of a
bipartisan bill titled, ``Energy Solutions for North
Carolina.''
And at a time when we are putting increasing demands on our
grid with electric vehicle mandates and new building codes, we
need look no further than California and Texas to see that
those trade-offs are not always wise. Trading reliability and
quality power for non-dispatchable sources is detrimental to
the grid and, more importantly, to ratepayers.
American voters deserve access to the facts so they can
decide for themselves, and our First Amendment ensures that
they can.
And while we are here having hearings to police debate of
energy policy, real problems need to be solved. Gas prices are
still far too high. Ratepayers are forced to pay for an
unreliable and inferior product due to bad policy decisions
from the past, which is really what we should be discussing.
So, what should we be doing? Well, we should be expanding
our energy infrastructure, encouraging domestic energy
production, rewarding reliability and resiliency. And for a
path to zero emissions, follow North Carolina's lead on HB 951,
and, most importantly, creating an atmosphere that respects the
First Amendment and fosters civil debate.
In closing, there is really good news about energy. We
don't have to choose between a clean environment and quality of
life. Thanks to Americans' innovative and entrepreneurial
spirit, we have demonstrated we can develop our resources
wisely, provide clean, safe power and be energy dominant, free
from independence on hostile regimes that may threaten our
national security.
I trust Americans to put good policy ahead of partisan
ideology. Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cooke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amy Oliver Cooke, CEO, The John Locke Foundation
Chair Porter, Ranking Member Moore, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be with you today and
provide comments.
I'd like to open with a quote from The Most Reverend Desmond Tutu:
``My father used to say, `Don't raise your voice, improve your
argument.' ''
My name is Amy Cooke. Since January 2020, I've been the CEO of the
John Locke Foundation, a state-based, free market think tank
headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina. Founded in 1990, Locke
envisions a North Carolina of responsible citizens, strong families,
and successful communities committed to individual liberty and limited,
constitutional government.
Prior to joining Locke, I held various positions, including
directing energy and environmental policy, at a sister think tank in
Colorado, the Independence Institute, headquartered in Denver. I have a
journalism degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia and a
master's degree in American history from the University of Northern
Colorado.
My passion and respect for the First Amendment are what drew me to
journalism. Fear of losing it drew me to public policy. ``More
information is freedom,'' said Jimmy Lai, a newspaper publisher
currently imprisoned by the Chinese government for advocating for
democracy. Less information is tyranny.
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly,
freedom of the press, and freedom to petition the government aren't
just quaint phrases. They are the five freedoms enshrined in the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They constitute the cornerstone of
our republic.
The First Amendment is to the powerful what freedom is to would-be
tyrants. It is a life-saving vaccine that helps shield a republic from
succumbing to despots. Speaking truth to power and challenging the
power structure have been crucial to every single civil rights
advancement in our country.
In a recent interview, former ACLU executive director Ira Glasser
warned, ``For people who today claim to be passionate about social
justice, to establish free speech as an enemy is suicidal.'' If the
First Amendment doesn't apply to everybody, then it doesn't apply to
anybody.
The speech we dislike the most is the speech that should be most
protected. That especially includes public policy debates about how to
solve today's most pressing problems. I offer these words as a
foundation for my opening remarks and written testimony. Americans,
including those in the energy and environmental policy space, are
rightfully troubled by the growing threat that their speech will be
shut down by those who sit in politically powerful positions.
My expertise is in energy policy. What I've found in over a decade
of energy policy research is that all debates distill down to
tradeoffs. It is the responsibility of public policy organizations,
such as mine, to tell the truth about those tradeoffs, putting a face
on those tradeoffs so that people, including media influencers,
legislators, voters, and the general public, have all the information
they need to make informed public policy decisions.
I've been on the ground working with those who have concerns and
stories to tell regarding those tradeoffs. They have a right to tell
their story, and the public has the right to hear them, but they're
often shut out or marginalized by the information-industrial complex
that includes legacy media, big tech, and government.
As an example, let's take the regulatory space at the Colorado
Public Utilities Commission. It's the playground of corporate lawyers,
unelected bureaucrats, and well-funded environmental groups. They have
``stakeholder'' meetings that include only themselves. Then they issue
press statements slapping each other on the back for their hard work
securing a ``settlement'' that forces ratepayers, who weren't at the
table because they aren't ``stakeholders,'' to pay more for what was
going to be an inferior product that could greatly impact their
families and businesses. That's why I got involved in a utility's
carbon reduction plan at PUC. A group of small businesses felt their
voice wasn't being heard by the very commission that is supposed to
represent them.
The PUC does not put out the welcome mat for new players. In fact,
the barriers to entry in a regulatory proceeding are quite high
including: an antiquated filing system, lack of affordable local
counsel, and the need for highly skilled, and usually very expensive,
expert witnesses. Even if a party is fully prepared to enter into a
proceeding, intervention is largely discretionary. Only by first
persuading the PUC that intervention should be permitted is a party
granted an audience and a voice in the process. For the privilege of
petitioning your government, it can cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars to do it in a meaningful way.
Another example is a ballot measure I worked on in 2018. I headed
up an issue committee Spirit of Colorado in opposition to Proposition
112 that would have put oil and gas development off limits in a high
percentage of private land in Colorado. Opposition to it was strong and
bipartisan, including then Democrat gubernatorial candidate Jared Polis
who said it would ``all but ban fracking in Colorado.'' Democrat State
Representative Paul Rosenthal said, the measure ``goes too far, too
quickly. . .. It would basically ban the oil and gas industry from
Colorado.''
There were decent, hardworking Coloradans across the political
spectrum who wanted voters to know what a de facto ban on hydraulic
fracturing would do to their livelihoods, their families, their
businesses, and communities. We provided an outlet for people like a
welder named Raul, small business owner Mark Weinmaster, a young female
firefighter from a rural community, moms, and others to tell their
stories. They explained what the tradeoff of a 2,500-foot setback would
look like for them. In November, voters rejected Proposition 112 55
percent to 45 percent because it was bad public policy for Colorado.
Many of those same voters also elected Jared Polis to be their
Governor.
In a recent energy policy debate in North Carolina, we didn't argue
about the policy goal of zero carbon from the electricity production
and distribution industry. Instead, we provided expert analysis for the
most efficient and reliable way to get there. Our report supplied the
foundational building blocks for what ultimately became the final
version of a bipartisan bill H.B. 951 titled Energy Solutions for North
Carolina. Democrat Governor Roy Cooper signed it into law in October
2021.
Quick (and important) Facts about H.B. 951:
The bill mandates that reasonable steps be taken to
achieve a 70 percent reduction in CO2 emissions
by 2030 (with timing discretion given in certain
circumstances) and ``carbon neutrality'' by 2050 (also with
time discretion in certain circumstances).
The General Assembly gives the North Carolina Utilities
Commission (NCUC) authority to pick the energy fuel source
mix and plans, through a stakeholder process, to achieve
the goals stated in the law.
The law requires that the NCUC choose the least-cost and
most reliable options.
The law further requires the NCUC to reevaluate its
plan(s) every two years to account for technological
advancements which may improve the least-cost and
reliability standards.
At a time when we are putting increasing demands on our grid with
electric vehicle mandates and new building codes, we need look no
farther than California and Texas to see that their tradeoffs were not
wise. Trading reliability and quality power for taxpayer-subsidized
industrial wind and utility-scale solar is detrimental to the grid and,
more importantly, to ratepayers. Electricity becomes unreliable and
much more expensive. American voters deserve access to the facts, so
that they can decide for themselves. Our First Amendment ensures that
they can. I trust voters to put good policy over partisan ideology.
So, while we sit in hearings to police the debate over energy
policy, real problems need to be solved. Gas prices are still far too
high. Rather than encourage domestic production, the President is
asking OPEC to increase production. The Economist labeled the looming
energy crisis across the Atlantic, ``Europe's winter of discontent.''
In California, ratepayers are forced to pay for an unreliable, inferior
product due to bad policy decisions from the past. As a result, they
were told to curb their electricity use to avoid rolling blackouts. In
Denver, the utility locked some residential thermostats so ratepayers
couldn't adjust them during peak demand.
When a cyberattack and network disruption shut down the Colonial
Pipeline in 2021, 70 percent of North Carolina gas stations went dry.
It was reminiscent of the 1970s gas lines, with cars backed up for
miles in hopes of securing a few precious gallons. It's no better if
you have an electric vehicle, and your Governor tells you not to charge
it because it could strain the grid.
Energy is the lifeblood of our economy, but we don't protect it as
if it is. We don't have redundancies nor contingency plans in place.
The reality is we must have energy to power our modern economy.
That includes transportation, residential, commercial and industrial.
What should we be doing?
Expand our energy infrastructure
Encourage domestic energy production and development of
rare earth minerals
Expand our energy infrastructure and encourage expansion
with our allies
Reward reliability and resiliency
Stop rewarding non-dispatchable, unreliable energy sources
that threaten grid stability
Consider a reliability risk premium or a cost of failure.
If a generator cannot guarantee its capacity factor,
investors or shareholders should be held accountable.
For a path to zero emissions, follow North Carolina's lead
on HB 951. Like Colorado, our Utilities Commission has
procedural flaws and regulatory barriers to entry, but the
bill is a good policy model for reason and debate, for
mutual respect and reasonable compromise
Create an atmosphere that respects the First Amendment and
fosters civil debate
Lower barriers to entry in the regulatory arena, encourage
access so all voices can be heard in the energy space
In closing, there is good news about energy. It doesn't have to be
an either-or choice. We don't have to choose between a clean
environment and our quality of life. Thanks to Americans' innovative
and entrepreneurial spirit, we've greatly reduced our carbon emissions
while still allowing for human flourishing. We've demonstrated that we
can develop our resources wisely, provide clean, safe power and be
energy dominant, free from dependence on hostile regimes that may
threaten our national security. I've included links to a number of
resources to assist with the development of such an approach, and, of
course, I, or any member of my team is always available and willing to
help.
We shouldn't be afraid of different ideas. We don't have to raise
our voices or shut down speech with which we disagree. Rather than
blame some other entity or demand government intervention, let's follow
the advice of Desmond Tutu's father and improve our own arguments. It
will make all of us and our republic stronger in the long run.
For more information on any of the information presented above, I
suggest the following information:
How much would you spend on electricity for tens of thousands
of jobs lost?
https://www.johnlocke.org/how-much-more-would-you-spend-on-electricity-
for-tens-of-thousands-of-jobs-lost/
Big Blow
https://www.johnlocke.org/research/big-blow-offshore-wind-powers-
devastating-costs-and-impacts-on-north-carolina/
Energy Crossroads
https://www.johnlocke.org/research/energy-crossroads/
Analysis of Duke Energy's Carolinas Carbon Plan and a Least
Cost Decarbonization Alternative
https://www.johnlocke.org/research/analysis-of-duke-energys-carolinas-
carbon-plan-and-a-least-cost-decarbonization-alternative/
Implementation of NC H.B. 951, Energy Solutions for North
Carolina
https://www.johnlocke.org/implementation-of-h-b-951-whats-on-the-road-
ahead% EF%BF%BC/
Can House Bill 951 keep winter from coming to North Carolina?
https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion/can-house-bill-951-keep-winter-
from-coming-to-north-carolina/
Brad Muller testimony
https://starw1.ncuc.gov/NCUC/ViewFile.aspx?Id=54fbaba6-76d3-4367-abe2-
ee3f8 fade516
Coalition of Ratepayers Case Study
https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/CoRP_Case_Study_v2_a.pdf
Colonial Pipeline Shutdown: Outages by State
https://www.gasbuddy.com/go/colonial-pipeline-shutdown-fuel-outages-by-
state
______
Ms. Porter. The Chair now recognizes Anne Lee Foster,
former Director of Communication and Community Engagement for
Colorado Rising.
STATEMENT OF ANNE LEE FOSTER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATION
AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, COLORADO RISING, PAONIA, COLORADO
Ms. Foster. Chair Porter, Ranking Member Moore, and members
of the Committee, my name is Anne Lee Foster and I was a ballot
initiative proponent of Prop 112. This was a role I never
expected to find myself in.
Before moving to Colorado, I was working for a university
art museum in Virginia. Although I was working a wonderful job,
I was living in my hometown and wanted to make a big change, so
I moved. I was looking forward to the clear blue skies. But
when I arrived, that was not the reality. The Boulder-Denver
area has an F air quality rating, according to the American
Lung Association, largely due to fracking.
I learned of the many studies demonstrating the negative
health impacts of living near fracking and heard countless
stories of children suffering from nosebleeds, asthma, and
coughing episodes. I learned of a ballot initiative to limit
fracking and volunteered for the campaign organized by
concerned parents, school teachers, and impacted citizens.
I was harassed starting the first week of signature
gathering, when men carrying signs targeted me, yelling at
potential signers, and standing between the individual and
myself. This was statewide and persisted throughout the 4
months we gathered signatures. There are many accounts of
particularly women being followed around by multiple protesters
for extended periods. Many folks reported being intimidated and
scared.
A document was leaked to our campaign from an employee of
Anadarko, a fracking company, instructing employees to text the
location of our signature gatherers, if they saw them. Colorado
Public Radio texted the numbers, and protesters showed up
within 10 to 15 minutes each time.
We hired a professional signature-gathering firm that said
they had dealt with opposition tactics and with Pac/West. The
firm quickly started billing us at much higher rates than
agreed to and producing significantly fewer signatures. The
reason cited was harassment from protesters. Several weeks into
signature gathering, we received a call from office staff who
said the office was closing, and the principal of their firm
was removing signed petitions. The firm told us we would have
to pay them another $40,000 to get the signatures back. We got
them back when we went public with the incident.
We contracted with two other firms after this who both quit
early. One of the firms told volunteers he had taken payment to
stop working with us.
Despite these challenges, we qualified for the ballot. Two
weeks before the election we were sued for defamation by the
president of the first firm. The damages were based mostly on
the allegation they had lost a contract with Pac/West. We have
recordings of all the conversations proving the firm's
president took signatures against our will, and the attempts to
coerce us. The suit was withdrawn.
I personally suffered from what I feel is stalking or
harassment. I noticed a suspicious man at one of my signature-
gathering trainings. When turning in the signatures at the
Secretary of State's office, I noticed that individual
seemingly waiting for us. I told them I recognized him. I later
received a text from an unknown number congratulating me on our
success, identifying himself as the person I recognized at the
Secretary of State's office, and saying he worked for a neutral
third party. He later texted and asked me to coffee or ice
cream.
Later, at the Colorado State Capitol, a strange man began
to follow me. I ducked down hallways and changed floors, but I
couldn't shake him. He appeared at a press conference that we
hosted and recorded it on his phone. I also saw him at a county
commissioners hearing. He never stated who he was or why he was
attending. I also saw him at a local coffee shop I frequented.
I started to encounter symptoms of adrenal fatigue,
including hair loss, unexplained weight gain, and panic
attacks. I saw several health professionals, including a
psychologist and therapist.
Despite all that we endured, the strength and persistence
of Coloradoans volunteering to protect their families and
communities from this destructive industry was deeply
inspiring, and something I will never forget.
In the end, this isn't about my story or even Prop 112. It
is about what we are all going to endure at the hands of these
destructive industries.
I leave you with this quote from Nathaniel Rich's book,
Losing Earth: ``Everything is changing about the natural world,
and everything must change about the way we conduct our lives.
It is easy to complain that the problem is too vast and each of
us is too small. But there is one thing that each of us can do
ourselves in our homes, at our own pace, something easier than
taking out the recycling or turning down the thermostat, and
something more valuable. We can call the threats to our future
what they are. We can call the villains villains, the heroes
heroes, the victims victims, and ourselves complicit. We can
realize that all this talk about the fate of the Earth has
nothing to do with the planet's tolerance for higher
temperatures, and everything to do with our species' tolerance
for self-delusion. And we can understand that when we speak
about things like fuel efficiency standards, or gasoline taxes,
or methane flarings, or setbacks, we are speaking about nothing
less than all we love and all that we are.''
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Foster follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne Lee Foster, Former Director of Communication
and Community Engagement for Colorado Rising and Ballot Initiative
Proponent of Colorado's Proposition 112
My name is Anne Lee Foster and I am the former Director of
Communication and Community Engagement for Colorado Rising and one of
two ballot initiative proponents of Proposition 112. This was an unpaid
position and a role I never expected to find myself in.
Before moving to Colorado in 2016, I attended Mary Baldwin
University for Art Management and was working for a small university
art museum in collections located in Williamsburg, Virginia. Although I
was working a wonderful job with many benefits, I was living in my
hometown and needed to make a big change. Right after my 29th birthday,
I made the decision to follow my partner at the time and move to
Boulder, Colorado.
Having a passion for the outdoors, I was looking forward to many
days under the clear blue skies of my new home state, but when I
arrived I realized that was not the reality. In reality, the air was
heavily polluted. Boulder and the Denver Metro area have an F air
quality rating according to the American Lung Association. Studies by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and the National
Center for Atmospheric Research have found that about 50% of this comes
from the fracking industry.
While living on the front range, I learned of the many studies
demonstrating the negative health impacts of living near fracking and
heard countless stories of children suffering from nosebleeds, asthma
and coughing episodes from being exposed to pollution from these sites.
I was stunned by this and began looking into it more. Local
governments had no power to stop massive fracking sites that were
moving closer and closer to neighborhoods and the state agency that
oversaw fracking was a rubberstamp operation having never denied a
permit. I learned about efforts to bring a ballot initiative that would
limit fracking in Colorado at a gathering of friends and I volunteered
for a campaign organized by concerned parents, schoolteachers, and
other impacted citizens and started off managing signature gathering
efforts.
In 2016, our signature gatherers dealt with strangers following
them around in public and strongly discouraging citizens from signing
the petitions. This effort fell short of making the ballot and we
decided to try again in 2018 when I was chosen to be an official
proponent of the initiative.
I was harassed starting the very first weekend of signature
gathering throughout the campaign and afterward. It started at Boulder
Creek Festival my first time gathering signatures when young men
carrying signs reading ``Save Colorado Jobs'' targeted me. What
happened was, I would approach someone to sign my petition and they
would yell at them to not to sign and then physically stand between me
and the individual. This was very uncomfortable for the person trying
to sign and resulted in most people not wanting to engage at all and
walking away.
This type of behavior escalated throughout the campaign and there
are many accounts of our volunteers, particularly women, being followed
around by multiple aggressive male protesters while gathering
signatures for extended periods of time. Many of these women reported
being intimidated and even frightened for their safety. These incidents
are documented in our campaign log of harassment events and although
that is not an exhaustive list, it shows that this kind of activity
persisted throughout the four months we gathered signatures throughout
the state of Colorado, primarily in Boulder, Denver, and Fort Collins.
In one account, a volunteer was followed home. The protesters were also
known to wait outside of campaign offices and follow signature
gatherers as they left to go to their posts.
On one occasion, two protesters came into the Boulder campaign
office and asked for resumes to apply to gather signatures. They were
then seen the next day in front of the Boulder Library targeting our
signature gathers with opposing messaging.
When asked about the issue, the protesters were ill-informed,
knowing very little about the details of the ballot initiative, the
practice of fracking, or the climate crisis. When questioned, I never
heard substantial opinions about the science, the initiative, or real
statistics regarding impacts on the job market or economy. We did,
however, hear the same two talking points repeatedly, ``Save Colorado's
economy,'' and ``250,000 jobs lost.'' Additionally, many of these
protesters were quick to present the same preprinted document,
declaring their constitutional right to participate in this type of
behavior.
While signature gathering was taking place, a document was leaked
to our campaign from an employee of Anadarko, an oil and gas producer
in Colorado, instructing any employees of the company to text the
location of our signature gatherers if they saw any. Sam Brasch of
Colorado Public Radio tested the number given in the document and
aggressive protesters showed up within 10-15 minutes each time.
To garner enough signatures to reach the ballot, we hired a well-
known professional signature gathering firm based out of Oregon and
signed a contract with estimates of the number of signatures they would
collect and the cost of collection. During our first few meetings with
this firm, they indicated that they had experience dealing with
opposition tactics and specifically had ``dealt'' with PacWest
Communications, a public relations firm based in Oregon with well known
ties to the oil and gas industry operators in Colorado. However, soon
after implementing the signature gathering efforts, the firm started
billing Colorado Rising at much higher rates than agreed to and
producing significantly fewer signatures. The reason they cited for
increased costs was ``harassment from protestors''. Furthermore, there
were many issues with the validity of the signatures they did provide.
Several weeks into signature gathering the firm contacted Colorado
Rising and informed us that they had to break our contract immediately
and they no longer had our deposit to return to us. They also wanted to
bill us another substantial amount of money over the previously quoted
amount. Colorado Rising negotiated that the firm stays on for another
week in order to transfer the operation over to our campaign's
management.
The next day, we received a call from contracted office staff with
the firm who informed us that they had been told our signature
gathering campaign was over and the office was closed. These staff
shared with us that they had gone to the office and had seen the
principal of the firm removing signed petitions and relevant paperwork
from the office. The firm then informed us that the boxes containing
approximately 15 thousand signatures had been taken out of state and we
would have to pay another $40,000 to get them back. The signatures were
eventually recovered after Colorado Rising went public with the details
of the incident in a press conference. At that point, the firm's
attorney called Colorado Rising's counsel to inform him the petitions
were at a Denver Greyhound station. The campaign was still unable to
recover them until Colorado State Representative Joe Salazar intervened
and requested their release from Greyhound staff.
In addition, we heard from dozens of signature gatherers, there
were over 150 of them, that their final paychecks from the firm
bounced, leaving them in a bad position. Many of these signature
gatherers live in temporary housing or are officially unhoused and this
left them in very difficult and precarious positions. Many of these
unpaid workers filed complaints with the Colorado Department of Labor
that were left unresolved because the firm was dissolved by its
principals soon after the campaign ended.
We contracted with two other firms after this to gather the
remaining signatures. After just a few days of working with one of the
firms, they informed us they could no longer continue working with us.
A few weeks later the gentleman who ran that firm was seen outside of
our signature gathering office. Two Colorado Rising volunteers
approached him and asked what happened. He then informed them that he
had taken payment to stop working with us.
We had a third signature gathering firm end their relationship with
us earlier as well, resulting in us taking on the entire statewide
signature gathering effort ourselves because we felt we couldn't trust
another firm.
I personally suffered from what I feel is stalking or harassment in
a number of other circumstances throughout this campaign. In one
instance a gentleman in his mid to late twenties came to my signature
gathering training and exhibited what I would call ``suspicious''
behavior. I made a mental note of him. When we went to turn in the
signatures at the Secretary of State's Office I noticed this same
individual sitting outside seemingly waiting for us. I engaged with him
and informed him that I recognized him and he nodded at me but didn't
verbally respond. A few weeks later I received a text from an unknown
number congratulating me on our success in making the ballot. When I
asked who it was he identified himself as the person I recognized at
the SoS office, he congratulated me and called me ``kid'' and told me
he was working for a ``neutral third party''. He then asked me out to
coffee or ice cream which I found odd and unsettling.
Despite, these challenges we qualified for the ballot.
During the next phase of the campaign, there was extensive
advertising declaring Prop 112 a ``ban'' on oil and gas development in
Colorado. To be clear, the ballot initiative would have required a 2500
ft setback for new oil and gas development from homes, schools,
waterways, and other sensitive areas. There was another document leaked
from Anadarko at this point. This document was an analysis from RS
Energy Group which estimated the total developable land area that would
be affected by Prop 112. The report illustrates that the industry was
aware of the fact that this was not a full ban. You can see the
discrepancy between actual estimated impacts and the claims they were
making in the media about how they would be impacted. (Exhibit A)
I found out two weeks before the election that we were being sued
for defamation by the principal operator of the signature-gathering
firm, the President, the person who took the boxes full of petition
signatures, via a press notice. I was not actually served until
election night at our election night party. The damages that were cited
in the suit were based mostly on the allegation that the firm's
president had lost one contract with PacWest. The case never had merit
because we were all volunteers with the campaign and therefore
protected by good samaritan laws and the First Amendment. I felt this
was another form of harassment. One that lasted 1.5 years and cost
nearly $50,000 before it was withdrawn when it was shown to be
baseless. I am sure this committee has heard of the huge problem of
SLAPP suits and how they chill public participation in the resolution
of important issues such as the ones we were attempting to address. We
had recordings of all the conversations proving the firm's president
took the boxes containing petition signatures against our will and the
attempts to coerce us into paying many thousands of dollars to get them
back.
We lost the initiative by a little less than 4.5 points but earned
over a million votes, more votes than the Republican candidate for
Colorado Governor. As a result, elected officials recognized that this
was an important issue to Colorado voters, and the following year
Senate Bill 181 (Protect Public Welfare Oil And Gas Operations) was
introduced. Immediately after SB 181 was introduced a FOIA request by
the Colorado Oil and Gas Association was made for all communications
between myself and the legislative authors of the bill.
It was at this time I noticed more strangers exhibiting what I
found to be suspicious activity at coffee shops where we had Colorado
Rising staff meetings. On one occasion a gentleman was at the coffee
shop for several hours while we were there. I began to be suspicious
when I noticed that he was looking at the same documents from the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission that we were discussing
and viewing and when he stayed the full duration of our meeting.
On another occasion when I was visiting the Colorado State Capitol
a man I did not know began to follow me through the building. When I
noticed this I attempted to lose him by ducking down hallways and
changing floors but he continued to follow me until my friend
confronted him. This same gentleman also showed up at a press
conference that Colorado Rising hosted and recorded it on his phone and
I also saw him at an Adams County Commissioners hearing. He never
stated who he was or why he was attending any of these events. I also
saw him at a local coffee shop I frequented which was very unsettling
for me as I was not there in any professional capacity and no official
events were taking place there, it was just me on my personal time.
Soon after the pandemic, I left Colorado Rising. I started to
encounter several symptoms of adrenal fatigue including hair loss,
unexplained weight gain, and panic attacks. I sought the guidance of
several health professionals including a psychologist and therapist. I
eventually moved out of Boulder to a small town because I could no
longer handle the stress. Prior to this, I was known in my personal and
professional life as someone who could be trusted to handle crises and
emergency response, something I could no longer do.
Despite all that we endured, the strength and persistence of
Coloradans volunteering their time to protect their families and
communities from this destructive, boom-and-bust industry was deeply
inspiring and something I will never forget. In the end, this isn't
about my story or even Prop 112. It's about what we all are going to
experience because of the damage these industries have wrought.
I leave you with this quote that has inspired me throughout this
experience from Nathaniel Rich's book, Losing Earth.
``Everything is changing about the natural world and everything
must change about the way we conduct our lives. It is easy to
complain that the problem is too vast, and each of us is too
small. But there is one thing that each of us can do ourselves,
in our homes, at our own pace--something easier than taking out
the recycling or turning down the thermostat, and something
more valuable. We can call the threats to our future what they
are. We can call the villains villains, the heroes heroes, the
victims victims and ourselves complicit. We can realize that
all this talk about the fate of Earth has nothing to do with
the planet's tolerance for higher temperatures and everything
to do with our species' tolerance for self-delusion. And we can
understand that when we speak about things like fuel-efficiency
standards or gasoline taxes or methane flaring, we are speaking
about nothing less than all we love and all we are.''
EXHIBIT A: RS Energy Group Report:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HNC5cHKxEkD2diBo0SWgdqxgagR_5yoy/
view?usp=sharing
Heartland Institute, a pro-oil and gas think tank, claims about 112:
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/research-
-commentary-proposition-112-would-negatively-impact-colorados-economy
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Anne Lee Foster, Former Director
of Communication and Community Engagement for Colorado Rising and
Ballot Initiative Proponent of Colorado's Proposition 112
Questions Submitted by Representative Porter
Question 1. In addition to the events you described in your hearing
testimony, what other negative consequences have you or your
organization suffered in the wake of your attempts to pass the Colorado
ballot measures?
Answer. Several of the core team members had their phones hacked or
their computers mysterious blacked out and rendered useless. Examples
of hacking were having text messages and phone calls not be transmitted
at all and for no apparent reason. In one instance the individuals were
sitting next to each other and sending test messages that appeared to
go through on the sender's phone but were never received on the other
phone. In another instance, the inbox of my email account was deleted
with no way to trace the messages after getting onto a public wifi
network while on vacation in Canada.
We also had at least two attempts from the opposition to leverage
fines against us via complaints filed with the state regarding our
funding and wages reports for signature gathering. These were all
dismissed but were extremely stressful as the consequences would have
cost thousands of dollars to either the organization or us personally.
Question 2. From your time working on Proposition 112 and
advocating on behalf of local residents, please elaborate on how
fracking and other oil and gas extraction affected the health of nearby
communities.
Answer. The impacts are numerous and I heard firsthand accounts
that ranged from short-term acute effects like nose bleeds, asthma
attacks, coughing episodes, headaches, irritated eyes and throat to
significantly more long-term and critical health impacts like cancer,
low birth weight in newborns, cardiovascular disease, and deadly
explosions like in the instance of the Firestone home explosion that
killed two men and gravely injured two others in their home. When I was
working on the issue several studies from the Colorado School of Public
Health and the state of Colorado concluded there is an elevated risk of
adverse health impacts from living near oil and gas extraction
facilities from exposure to toxic emissions and explosions were a
monthly occurrence in the state.
Many residents also reported their homes shaking from horizontal
drilling occurring under their homes or from seismic testing the
operators performed in neighborhoods. The traffic, noise, and lights
were frequent points of stress and disruption for nearby communities.
These complaints are well documented in the Colorado Oil and Gas
Commission's logs.
It is also important to note the facilities that were causing these
impacts are not the single pump jacks of old western films. These are
multi-well pads, in many cases 40 wells or more to a site, and are a
full industrial operation that isn't subject to any local zoning codes
which also impacted property values.
Here is a sample of studies documenting health impacts in Colorado
and the greater United States:
A Princeton study of 10 million babies found that infants born
within one kilometer (3,280 ft) of a fracking well were 25% more likely
to have low birth weights (less than 5.5 pounds) than infants born more
than three kilometers away.
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/12/13/hydraulic-fracturing-
negatively-impacts-infant-health
Colorado School of Public Health study: Concluded residents living
\1/2\ mile from wells are at greater risk for health effects from NGD
than are residents living >\1/2\ mile from wells.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22444058
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the Colorado
School of Public Health study: Found negative birth impacts within 10
miles of oil and gas development.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=10.1289%2Fehp.1306722
Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project Study: The
panel reached consensus that setbacks of <\1/4\ mile should not be
recommended and additional setbacks for vulnerable populations should
be recommended.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/
journal.pone.0202462
Environmental Health Perspectives study: Found that the average
evacuation zone was 0.8 mi (4224 ft.). Concluded there is no defined
setback distance that assures safety based on evaluation of numerous
health impacts.
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510547
Hopkins Asthma Study: People with asthma who live near bigger or
larger numbers of active unconventional natural gas wells operated by
the fracking industry in Pennsylvania are 1.5 to 4 times likelier to
have asthma attacks than those who live farther away.
https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2016/study-fracking-industry-
wells-associated-with-increased-risk-of-asthma-attacks.html
Hopkins Birth Study: The researchers found that living in the most
active quartile of drilling and production activity was associated with
a 40 percent increase in the likelihood of a woman giving birth before
37 weeks of gestation (considered pre-term) and a 30 percent increase
in the chance that an obstetrician had labeled their pregnancy ``high-
risk.''
https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/study-fracking-industry-
wells-associated-with-premature-birth.html
Global Public Health Review Paper: ``We have enough evidence at
this point that these health impacts should be of serious concern to
policymakers interested in protecting public health,'' Gorski said.
http://oxfordre.com/publichealth/view/10.1093/acrefore/
9780190632366.001.0001/acrefore-9780190632366-e-44
May 26, 2017: Gas Well Blowout in Logan County where a safety valve
failed. This resulted in a 2-mile evacuation radius.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/26/leaking-gas-well-sterling-
evacuations/
September 8th, 2017: Valve leak at SRC Energy site evacuates high
school football game to \1/2\ mile.
https://www.greeleytribune.com/news/local/west-greeley-gas-leak-forces-
evacuation-of-football-stadium-during-game/
December 22, 2017: Extraction Oil & Gas wellsite explodes resulting
in a 1 mile evacuation radius.
https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.18/energy-industry-how-site-workers-and-
firefighters-responding-to-a-2017-natural-gas-explosion-in-windsor-
colorado-narrowly-avoided-disaster
November 7, 2018: Noble Energy well site fire evacuated to one
mile.
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/11/07/oil-gas-fire-weld-county/
November 13, 2018: Noble Energy well site fire resulted in \1/2\
mile evacuation radius.
https://www.greeleytribune.com/news/noble-energy-site-near-windsor-
catches-fire/
Question 3. In your testimony, you shared that over the course of
your campaign you documented numerous individuals engaging in nefarious
tactics, including following, harassing, and sabotaging your efforts.
You provided the Committee with screenshots from various text messages
you received from an individual after your campaign collected enough
signatures to get on the ballot. Can you describe how you first came to
know this person and what your interactions with the person were like?
How did your interactions with this individual, and other similar
interactions, affect you? Did it affect how you approached organizing
and campaigning?
Answer. The first time I interacted with the individual that sent
the text messages in the screenshots was at a signature gathering
training that I lead in the Boulder campaign office. The individual
attended the training and presented himself as a supporter of the
cause, even answering ``icebreaker'' questions like ``why are you
interested in volunteering for this campaign?'' At the time, his
demeanor and responses instigated red flags in my mind and I noted that
I felt he was an infiltrator and not fully disclosing his intentions in
being there.
The next interaction I had with this individual was outside the
Colorado Secretary of State's office in Denver when we submitted our
collected signatures to be placed on the ballot. There were 4-5
individuals standing outside the building and in the lobby seemingly
waiting for our arrival. We had a similar ``greeting committee'' when
we submitted the collected signatures in 2016. I recognized one of the
individuals waiting for us as the same suspicious person that attended
the signature gathering training. I proceeded to tell him I was glad he
could make it to the big event and that he should know I was aware that
he was misrepresenting himself from our first interaction a few months
before.
After the Colorado Secretary of State certified our initiative as a
proposition on the 2018 ballot, I received the text messages in the
screenshots congratulating me on our success. A few days later, the
same individual text me again asking if I would like to go out for
coffee or ice cream. I did not respond.
Question 4. What is a SLAPP suit? By whom and for what reasons was
one brought against your organization? What was the outcome of that
lawsuit?
Answer. A SLAPP suit stands for strategic litigation against public
participation. Two other individuals from our organization and myself
were sued by the principal of the first signature-gathering firm that
we contracted with for stating publicly that they had taken our
signatures without our permission and that they attempted to extort us
for their return. The lawsuit last over a year and a half and resulted
in the plaintiffs withdrawing the suit. We had recorded all
conversations with the principal of the firm that showed him admitting
to taking the signatures and the attempted extortion. We were also all
protected by good samaritan laws because we were volunteers. Finally,
the only damages the firm could provide was the loss of a contract with
PACWest, a communications firm that is well known for working with the
oil and gas industry and is a subject of investigation in this hearing.
Question 5. Is there anything else you would like to add for the
hearing record?
Answer. No.
______
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much for that valuable
testimony.
Reminding Members that Committee Rule 3(d) imposes a 5-
minute limit on questions, the Chair will now recognize Members
for any questions they may wish to ask the witnesses.
I would like to start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
I am going to start by directing my questions to Ms. Arena.
Ms. Arena, you are a 20-year communications industry
professional specializing in sustainability and social impact
campaigns. Is that correct?
Ms. Arena. That is correct.
Ms. Porter. OK. And roughly how many campaigns have you
worked on over these past 20 years?
Ms. Arena. I have worked on roughly over 100 campaigns, and
I still do this work.
Ms. Porter. Based on your experience, do you know what the
standard practices are in the public relations industry?
Ms. Arena. I certainly do.
Ms. Porter. According to your written testimony, you wrote,
``There is nothing standard or ethical about the practices of
the PR firms we are discussing today.'' What makes these
practices different from the standard work PR firms perform for
clients?
Ms. Arena. Well, that quote in my written testimony was in
reference to the third-party mobilization tactic of hiring fake
protesters to disrupt an ongoing Colorado Rising event. You
know, hiring fake protesters is unethical in multiple ways.
First, they are fake protesters, right? There is the
simulation of community support or opposition that isn't really
necessarily real.
Secondly, it is not disclosed who is paying for and funding
those paid protesters.
And thirdly, those paid protesters that I wrote about were
actually engaging in what I believe are harassment behaviors.
That is, stalking Colorado Rising members as they were trying
to make their voices heard.
I do not believe that there is a single trade association
in my industry that would consider the hiring of fake
protesters to be an ethical marketing practice. And I certainly
don't consider that standard.
Ms. Porter. It is a far cry from the kind of typical image
promotion or advertisements that we think about with PR firms.
These unethical practices, these unethical PR firms, are
often most effective at the local level, where powerful
corporate interests can overwhelm local communities. Ms.
Foster, what was your experience in Colorado facing off against
one of these PR firms?
Ms. Foster. The harassment was extensive. We logged
throughout the state and throughout the entire 4 months of our
campaign, the extensive harassment and targeting was
approximately $40 million spent against the campaign in the, I
think, 9 total months that we were running the campaign.
So, yes, they were incredibly sophisticated and widespread.
And this was just against, like I said, moms, grassroots
campaign people that are doing this in their spare time. They
don't have the expertise and sophisticated techniques that
these campaigns were implementing against us.
Ms. Porter. Thank you, Ms. Foster. The groups in Colorado
opposing this proposition that you worked on reported spending
upwards of $30 million on their campaign.
Ms. Arena, to go back to you, is that a typical amount for
a PR firm to spend on a state ballot campaign?
Ms. Arena. That is a very high amount to spend on a state
ballot campaign, I would say, $31 million. They outspent the
opposition by, I think that would be a factor of over 30 to 1.
And that money, obviously, went very far for them.
Ms. Porter. And how did the PR firm use the millions of
dollars it received from the oil and gas industry for this
campaign?
What were some of the messages that they were trying to
promote and give the appearance that they were coming from the
community?
Ms. Arena. Yes. Well, I can say that it is obvious that
they tried to flood the zone with as much media as they
possibly could: TV, social posts, direct mail, op-eds, events,
and so forth. They obviously did very big, large media buys, I
would assume.
And the third-party mobilization efforts were quite
extensive. So, there would be a lot of work done around
recruiting those individuals, paying them, managing them,
pushing them to, again, echo the talking points of the
campaign. Again, a lot of that was undisclosed activity, where
it wasn't clear who was funding those actors. So, those are
very expensive campaigns.
The messaging was a little bit on the extreme side. I think
that Colorado Rising--the effort, the ballot initiative--was
framed as a liberal effort to drive conservatives out of the
state of Colorado. So, we saw very extreme language used in the
scope of the campaign itself.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. The Chair will now
recognize Ranking Member Moore, the gentleman from Utah, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chair.
Let's just simply state what we are talking about today,
that it is OK for environmental groups to put spin or narrative
and create a storyline that even the Denver Post had to come
back and retract and correct misleading statements from a
narrative that was getting pushed in Colorado, but it is not OK
for American energy companies to tell their story.
You cannot have it both ways. And today's hearing is
entirely about not even looking at the misinformation or
narratives that we have seen from environmental groups being an
example that hopefully we get a chance to discuss today.
I would like to just go through and just a sincere yes or
no from each of our witnesses. And I am going to open it up,
not just the Republican witness today, to all of you, just a
sincere yes or no. And then I will move on to some questions
that I have prepared.
Is natural gas a better energy source for reducing
emissions than coal? Does anybody disagree with that statement?
Do you agree that natural gas is better than, it emits less
pollutants than coal? Can we just go down the list of everybody
here on the panel today?
[Pause.]
Mr. Moore. I can read everybody's name. Sorry. I will grab
everybody's names here. Here we go.
Ms. Arena?
Ms. Arena. No, methane is one of the top greenhouse gases.
Mr. Moore. Just a yes or no.
Ms. Arena. No.
Mr. Moore. So, you think that coal is better than natural
gas?
Ms. Arena. No, I don't think coal is better. I think
natural gas is slightly better----
Mr. Moore. Well, that was--I am just asking for a yes or
no. Would you rather have it be coal? Because wind can't do it
all. We can't cover it all with wind. I wish we could, but we
can't.
So, Ms. Aronczyk?
Dr. Aronczyk. I am an expert in communications and media
strategies----
Mr. Moore. Just a yes or no. Ms. Cooke, a yes or no.
Ms. Cooke. Yes.
Mr. Moore. And Ms. Foster?
Ms. Foster. I am sorry. Could you just clarify----
Mr. Moore. Would you prefer it to be coal or natural gas?
Ms. Foster. I am just confused by the question.
Mr. Moore. I understand. See, this is what I am talking
about. We can't get to the root of the problem here.
Let's just--me, as 1 Member of 435 Members of Congress,
what I am trying to do is help us avoid what Europe is going
through right now. They succumbed to a narrative that natural
gas was the worst thing in the world, even though it reduces
emissions. And then they just buy it from Russia. Then we have
a global catastrophic event going on in Ukraine right now with
Russia, the evil empire that they are. So, they have to then go
away from the energy there, and so they go back to coal, right?
And I just want to help us avoid that.
And I am not saying that my party has ever had this
perfect. We haven't. But what we know is we have to have
energy. We have to be able to get to and from places.
Democrats, Republicans, we all use energy. And I just want to
help us build a broader, more expansive, strategic plan on how
to go about doing this.
Otherwise, just constantly demonizing the energy industry
that--well, I found in my interactions with them, they have
been sincere on their efforts to embrace clean technology and
reduce emissions. Across the Wasatch Front in Utah, they
invested an enormous amount of money, over-invested into tier 3
gasoline. They didn't have to. They weren't forced to do it.
They did it because it was the right thing to do. We are all
for that, and we have been trying to promote that as much as
possible.
I get a little excited about this issue, so I apologize. I
sincerely was not trying to badger any of the witnesses. It is
just--we get two options. I just want to know what would you
rather, what we would rather be doing?
I will go back to Ms. Cooke here with about a minute left.
In your testimony, you mentioned that energy policy is all
about trade-offs. Can you just spend a few more minutes on
highlighting that, and then we will have a chance to jump into
some other questioning?
Ms. Cooke. Yes, thanks for the question.
We often think that the trade-off is just emissions. So, we
will say we are going to shut down a coal-fired power plant and
replace it with wind, solar, batteries, and some natural gas.
And then, therefore, will have lower emissions. But it is
really not that simple.
A single working mom sees her electricity bills skyrocket,
her power is shut off. It affects her quality of life. That is
a trade-off. Are we willing to do that to our fellow citizens?
But there are more trade-offs to consider, and it is
everything. It is land use, it is energy efficiency per capita,
it is cost, it is grid reliability, it is environmental
concerns, mineral extraction, resource development,
geopolitical, political.
And, also, just the role of each resource. Coal is a
baseload resource. Natural gas is an immediate type of
resource. Wind and solar are non-dispatchable, available when
Mother Nature decides that they are. It is about trade-offs.
And that is what we need to be talking about in the energy
policy arena. And it also includes how it is going to impact
our fellow citizens.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Ms. Cooke.
I yield back.
Ms. Porter. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from New York, Ms. Velazquez, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Velazquez. Yes, good morning, and thank you, Madam
Chair, for this important hearing.
Ms. Aronczyk, in your testimony you draw a parallel between
the long-term PR strategies used by the tobacco industry as
they tried to downplay the health impact of their product in
the 1980s and 1990s and the fossil fuel industry's efforts to
prevent action on climate change. Can you please briefly
explain why these strategies remain highly effective, even
across completely different sectors?
Dr. Aronczyk. Thank you for that question. The long-term,
strategic nature of public relations strategies--of course, the
most obvious answer is that they work. They work to delay
responses to environmental problems. They work to delay
environmental regulations and legislation. And they often
distort or otherwise confuse the message on whether these
environmental problems or climate issues are prevalent and
urgent.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. And Ms. Aronczyk, PR firms are
weaponizing information by creating false narratives about the
role that the fossil fuel industry plays in contributing to the
climate crisis. In your research, what effective strategies, if
any, have you come across to combat the spread of
disinformation?
Dr. Aronczyk. Strategies to combat the spread of
disinformation?
Ms. Velazquez. Yes, please.
Dr. Aronczyk. This is a tough question because it is very
challenging to know when there is constant disinformation
circulating, what is real and what is manufactured. So, the
onus ends up being on individuals to try to develop strategies
to pay attention to certain sources or multiple sources. Most
people don't have the kind of background information to be able
to parse especially some of the technical conversations and to
know where the facts are.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
Ms. Arena, would you like to comment on that question?
Ms. Arena. Yes, and I would like to put into perspective
how common and how widespread a problem this is. According to a
survey that was just released last week, 60 percent of oil
supermajor messaging contains a green claim, 60 percent. That
is the majority of their public-facing communications
containing a green claim, where less than 12 percent of their
capital expenditures are actually invested in those green
activities. It is even lower for Chevron and Exxon and U.S. gas
companies, as well.
And at the same time, the lobbying activity of these
companies is diametrically opposed to the public positions they
are taking. So, the rhetoric that they aim toward lawmakers is
completely different from the rhetoric they project out into
the world. So, what that does is it creates a mass level of
confusion around what it is that these companies are really
doing. And that is what we object to.
We do not object to the fact that these companies are
communicating. We are objecting to how they are communicating
and the strategies and tactics that they are using.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. Ms. Arena, I understand in 2015
you resigned from your position as Executive Vice President at
Edelman, citing the firm's stance on climate change as the
reason. Given your experience, what does holding PR firms like
Edelman accountable look like?
Ms. Arena. Well, I think the first thing that needs to
happen is open dialogue. The fact that we are here in a hearing
where not a single public relations firm engaged in some of
these activities is present--and they have all declined to
participate--I think is quite significant. There clearly needs
to be a straightforward and open discussion about these issues
that are absolutely connected with the climate change problem.
We have scientific consensus from the IPCC linking
misinformation and corporate brand building and advertising
efforts with climate obstruction. So, there is consensus around
this problem.
This is a conversation that the PR world needs to get
engaged in, and I help to drive those efforts forward, as well.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Porter. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Arena, let me begin with you. Yes or no, is Generous
Ventures a member of the Clean Creatives campaign?
Ms. Arena. Yes. We signed that pledge.
Dr. Hice. OK, thank you. And were you a founding member of
the Clean Creatives campaign? That is correct, isn't it?
Ms. Arena. I was one of the early members, correct.
Dr. Hice. OK. All right. Can you tell me who was behind the
funding of Clean Creatives, the campaign?
Ms. Arena. Individuals? No, I can't tell you that. I know
some of the foundations they have raised money from. But again,
I am not on the management committee over there, just a member.
Dr. Hice. OK. Do you know, does Clean Creatives accept
foreign money or foreign support while trying to influence
American policy?
Ms. Arena. I could not comment on their finances.
Dr. Hice. Well, I am not asking you to comment on the
finances. I am asking you if they accept foreign money.
Ms. Arena. Again, I don't know if they accept foreign
money.
Dr. Hice. Would you please provide a list of the funders
that you are aware of to this Committee? We would appreciate
that. You said you do know some. I am asking you to provide
that to the Committee please.
What kind of support does Fossil Free Media and the KR
Foundation provide to Clean Creatives?
Ms. Arena. KR Foundation is a foundation that supports
climate accountability work around the world. And they are a
funder of Fossil Free. And as I put in my disclosure form, I
also received a grant from KR Foundation.
Dr. Hice. OK. Madam Chair, I have a couple of e-mails here
that I would like to submit for the record. The first is one
sent out by Fossil Free Media about a press release regarding
the Majority's threat to a subpoena to FTI. The other is the
actual press release from the Majority in that regard.
Ms. Porter. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Hice
Emails regarding the FTI subpoena threat
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Hice. Thank you very much. The interesting thing with
these e-mails here, the first being sent out by Fossil Free
announcing the Majority's threat to subpoena FTI from Clean
Creatives, it is stamped-marked 5:34 p.m. Eastern Time on
August 17.
On the other hand, the official press release from the
Majority went out on that same day, August 17 at 7:28 p.m., so
almost 2 hours after the e-mail from Fossil Free.
Ms. Arena, do you know how Clean Creatives became aware
that the Majority was threatening to subpoena FTI?
Ms. Arena. No. Again, I don't work inside Fossil Free
Media. I am a member of their campaign, so I couldn't speak to
that.
Dr. Hice. Are you privy to information about future
Committee actions prior to the implementation or the public
announcement of Committee work?
Ms. Arena. If the Committee reaches out to us via e-mail,
we would be privy to that information. But otherwise, no.
Dr. Hice. So, are you saying the Committee reached out to
you beforehand about the subpoena?
Ms. Arena. Yes. I was made aware that it would potentially
happen.
Dr. Hice. It is very concerning to me that an outside
advocacy group knew hours before the public knew that the
Majority was going to threaten to issue a subpoena. It makes me
wonder what other information the Committee leaks, the Majority
leaks, to third-party outside groups before the public is made
aware of this. It is extremely concerning to me and
hypocritical that we are even having this hearing today. This
is totally bogus, totally hypocritical.
Ms. Cooke, let me go to you. Clean Creatives is allowed to
engage in free speech. But at the very same time, the public
relations firms representing the oil and gas industry are under
investigation for exercising free speech. Ms. Cooke, aren't
there some PR firms that attempt to influence voters against
oil companies that are funded by some of this dark money? Yes
or no?
Ms. Cooke. Yes.
Dr. Hice. Would you repeat that?
Ms. Cooke. Yes.
Dr. Hice. OK. Isn't it hypocritical to you, incredibly
hypocritical, to say that one side should have free speech and
the other side should not?
Ms. Cooke. Yes.
Dr. Hice. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Ms. Porter. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your
leadership on such an important issue.
Constituents in my district care deeply about advancing
renewable energy and creating a cleaner and healthier community
for all. And I imagine that the oil and gas industry knows that
a great way to combat popular support for building a clean
energy future is with disinformation or anti-democratic tactics
that prevent communities from doing what they truly believe is
best for them.
And I am particularly alarmed by Ms. Foster's experience in
Colorado, where the oil and gas PR firms blocked a popular
ballot proposition using tactics described by Ms. Foster as
nothing short of harassment, stalking, and fraud.
And more than anything, I am alarmed by the Committee's
findings that this is a pervasive issue.
Through PR firms, the fossil fuel industry is strategically
misleading members of all of our constituencies to line their
own pockets, stymie climate action, and disrupt the democratic
process, and they have for decades as our communities suffer
deep consequences.
Ms. Foster, in your testimony, you spoke about the
difficulties that Colorado Rising had retaining professional
signature-gathering firms for your ballot proposition. How
common is it to use such a firm, and is it fair to say that a
ballot campaign has to use one to have a fair shot?
Ms. Foster. The requirements in 2018 to make the ballot
were collecting over 100,000 signatures from registered
Colorado voters, which is an enormous task. And I know of only
one other ballot initiative campaign that has ever successfully
accomplished that without a professional signature-gathering
firm. So, I would say it is an imperative part of the process.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And what happened with your
signature-gathering firms?
Do you believe that you could access one whose work you
could trust?
Ms. Foster. By the end of the signature-gathering campaign,
we no longer felt that we could trust any campaigns to not be
paid off or flip on us, so we ended up actually taking on the
entire signature-gathering operation ourselves in the middle of
the campaign because we lost three firms.
Mr. Tonko. And multiple firms leaving sounds like a
pattern.
In a recording obtained by the Committee, Colorado Rising
volunteers asked a signature gatherer why he abruptly stopped
working with Colorado Rising. He said, and I quote, ``Oh,
nobody threatened me. You know what they are doing? They are
going around buying people.''
Ms. Foster, do you believe the other signature gatherers
were also paid off?
Ms. Foster. The first signature-gathering firm said that
they had been offered a bribe at the beginning of the campaign,
and the quality of work quickly deteriorated. That gentleman
openly stated that he was, and then we had another one leave
the campaign earlier than we had previously agreed upon. So, I
think the possibility is certainly likely.
Mr. Tonko. And in the same recording, the signature
gatherer admitted he had been asked to give the signatures he
had collected to the opposition group. Ms. Foster, would you
characterize this behind-the-scenes interference with your
campaign as an open and civil discussion?
Ms. Foster. No, not at all.
Mr. Tonko. OK. I thank you for your response to my
questions.
I certainly believe the American public deserves to
understand the extent that PR firms help oil and gas companies
by manipulating public perception and blocking popular efforts.
With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
the gentlelady from Colorado, Mrs. Boebert, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Foster, in 2018, Colorado Rising, a far left
environmental group that you helped lead, attempted to pass
Proposition 112, an oil and gas setback initiative that would
have established a 2,500-foot setback between new oil and gas
development that occupied buildings. Were you successful in
doing so?
Ms. Foster. No, we were not. We encountered an
approximately $40 million opposition campaign in comparison to
our about $1 million. So, foreign----
Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Ms. Foster. You were not
successful in doing so.
When put to a public vote, the initiative lost by 10
points. And the reason why is obvious: natural gas and oil
supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in Colorado,
approximately 235,000 jobs. And your ultimate goal to impose a
fracking ban on our state threatens to destroy our economy and
compromise our energy independence.
Ms. Foster, your America-last socialist organization has
repeatedly attempted to hit the oil and gas industry in
Colorado, including through ballot initiatives, while Colorado
Democrat Governor and Democrat Senators from my state promised
to support several of the initiatives you put forward. They
have since back-tracked, most notably last year, when the
Governor indicated he couldn't support Senate Bill 21-200.
In a scathing letter to Governor Polis in April 2021,
Colorado Rising had this to say: ``What is particularly
troubling about the Governor's attack on SB 200 is his use of
oil and gas industry talking points to justify his opposition
to the bill.'' Given your support for these elected officials
and their willingness to peel back numerous aspects of your
radical agenda, would it be fair to say that the Governor,
along with the Democrat Senators, betrayed your trust?
And are you disappointed in them for that way?
Ms. Foster. I am not entirely sure how this pertains to the
topic of PR firms, but the ultimate reality is that Proposition
112 was supported by the Colorado Democratic Party platform. We
got over a million votes from registered Colorado voters. We
secured the----
Mrs. Boebert. And the voters shut it down. Would it be fair
to say that the Governor and the Senators misled you into
believing that they supported your anti-affordable energy
agenda? They back-tracked on this.
Ms. Foster. I wasn't a part of 200, and that is a separate
issue from 112.
Mrs. Boebert. Colorado Democrats and myself find ourselves
in an interesting position because we do all disagree with your
anti-energy agenda, not because Colorado Democrats are
seriously interested in promoting affordable energy and
Colorado jobs, but because your agenda, if carried to its
logical conclusion, would involve the people of Colorado
rubbing their hands together to stay warm in the coming winter
months. And with natural gas prices at a 14-year high and
getting higher, they just might have to do that.
Now, Ms. Cooke, it appears to be the case that Democrats
frequently design arguments as disinformation or misinformation
to convince people that disagreeing with progressives'
orthodoxy is the wrong thing to do. Would you agree with this
assessment, and would you say that these kind of Democrat
attacks do nothing but chill free speech?
Ms. Cooke. Well, yes. I think a hearing like this that
attacks anyone's right to provide another side, another voice
is going to chill free speech.
And make no mistake, it was voters that defeated 112. It
wasn't anything else. It was voters.
Mrs. Boebert. Yes. Thank you, Ms. Cooke.
On June 12, 2022, the distinguished Chairman of this
Committee led a letter in which he argued that public relations
firms for oil and gas companies delay ``environmental
initiatives.'' In your view, is that justification enough to
take the extraordinary step of serving a PR firm with a
subpoena?
And is it appropriate to target PR firms who work with
clients Democrats don't like?
Ms. Cooke. No.
Mrs. Boebert. Now, while this Committee willingly uses
taxpayer resources to harass private companies--arguing, of
course, that coal, oil, and gas companies are spending tens of
millions of dollars to sway public opinion--actually, I want to
move on. Sorry, I have 4 seconds.
I really just want to know why isn't the Committee issuing
subpoenas for PR firms that offer support for the climate
change lobby, like the Sierra Club, who has repeatedly assured
us that the genocidal Chinese Communist Party, even while they
murdered millions of people in concentration camps, is actually
quite interested in working with the Democrats' climate change
agenda.
Ms. Porter. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair
will now recognize the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Mrs.
Trahan, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Chairwoman Porter and Ranking
Member Moore, just for allowing me to waive on to this
important hearing.
I think one thing that is important to note is that we can
have free speech and stop the spread of disinformation if we
stop with the grandstanding and just get to sensible policy-
making.
Like many of my colleagues, I represent communities in
Massachusetts, like Lowell and Lawrence, that have been harmed
by decades of under-investment in clean energy and, most
recently, record-breaking gas prices that big oil corporations
leveled to increase their already record-breaking profits.
And we are here today because of opaque business practices,
both on the part of billion dollar oil companies and the PR
firms they deploy to do their dirty work, but also social media
companies, which, by collecting troves of personal data on
users, have created services that can be weaponized to
manipulate public discourse.
It is important to recognize the relationship between these
two industries which profit from the destruction of our
ecosystems, and one example is the ability for companies and
the PR firms that they employ to micro-target online
advertisements. A study from the markup found Exxon was
targeting an ad that said, ``Learn how global thermostat is
capturing CO2 directly from the air'' to users who
engage with liberal political content, while users who engage
with conservative political content receive a very different ad
that states, ``The oil and gas industry is the engine that
powers America's economy. Help us make sure unnecessary
regulations don't slow energy growth.''
These types of ads are particularly concerning because they
are targeted in ways where experts such as those here today may
not see the misleading statement about economic growth and may
not be able to jump in with counter-arguments. And it shouldn't
take an investigative report to shine a light on this kind of
shady behavior. But right now, that is all that we, as
lawmakers and members of the public, have.
In February, I introduced legislation to change that. The
Digital Services Oversight and Safety Act, or DSOSA for short,
is a comprehensive transparency bill that requires companies
that host user-generated content to disclose data on digital
advertisements, recommendation algorithms, and publish risk
mitigation reports. In layman's terms, no longer will companies
like Exxon be able to hide behind ad targeting algorithms and
secretive social media policies when they try to pit Americans
against each other on the climate crisis. And it is for that
exact reason that DSOSA is supported by over 15 environmental
organizations.
So, Dr. Aronczyk, can you speak to the way large social
media platforms influence the spread of climate disinformation?
How might scholars in media studies and similar fields
benefit from having access to detailed ad libraries and similar
transparency metrics?
Dr. Aronczyk. Well, first, I would like to mention that
when we are talking about digital advertising, we really have
duopoly of power in Facebook and Google. So, when we are seeing
some of these targeted social media messages, we really see a
concentration of power over what we see, when we see it, where
we see it, and how often.
So, if media researchers like myself can have access to
understanding these documents, who is targeted, how are these
campaigns being manufactured to work toward certain audiences
and not others, that can let researchers ask better questions
and produce more informed research.
Mrs. Trahan. That is exactly right. And those are our
watchdogs. I couldn't agree more.
Companies, like you said, Facebook and Google, they have
teams that purport to fight coordinated, inauthentic behavior
that undermines democracy. And we must shift the incentives of
social media companies to put more effort into identifying and
bringing transparency to these campaigns. Given the profit
motives, it will require regulation.
So, I invite my colleagues to co-sponsor the Digital
Services Oversight and Safety Act because we can't continue to
let opaque business practices and algorithmic targeting of
information harm democracy, consumers, and our planet.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I appreciate you letting me
waive on, and I yield back.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much.
We will now begin a second round of questions. I recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Foster, I want to show the public and the members of
this Committee some screen captures from a video.
[Slide.]
Ms. Porter. Who are these three people, and what is going
on here?
Ms. Foster. One of the individuals is someone who is
gathering signatures for the Proposition 112 campaign, and the
other two are protesters that are actively following her and
encouraging her to stop gathering signatures.
Ms. Porter. Did the counter-protesters say what it would
take for them to leave, to stop following them?
Ms. Foster. Yes. They said that they would stop following
her if she put away her petition and stopped gathering
signatures.
Ms. Porter. So, rather than facilitating the signature
gatherers' free speech rights, they were trying to hinder and
discourage her.
Was this an isolated incident, or was this a common
occurrence?
Ms. Foster. This was a common occurrence that happened
throughout the state of Colorado.
Ms. Porter. I want to bring to your attention a leaked e-
mail from Anadarko, a major oil company that operates in the
Colorado area. It says, in part, if you see signature
collectors for number 97 or number 94, please follow the
instructions below to report said canvassers via text. Text
canvas to 72345. You will receive a note that says, ``Where did
you see a canvasser in your area?'' Respond with a specific
time, date, and location.
Ms. Foster, what is Anadarko asking for here?
Ms. Foster. They are asking their employees to report to
this text hotline the location of any of our signature
gatherers, if they see them out actively collecting signatures.
Ms. Porter. And what would happen if the signatures were
reported?
Ms. Foster. As reported by Sam Brasch in Colorado Public
Radio, a group of protesters would be deployed to the location
within 10 to 15 minutes, and then they would actively begin to
interfere with the signature-gathering process.
Ms. Porter. Do you think Anadarko also paid those men to
follow the signature gatherers?
And if you do think that, please tell the Committee why.
Ms. Foster. So, when the Colorado Public Radio followed up
with Anadarko regarding this letter and the text hotline, they
defaulted to Protect Colorado, which is an Astroturf group in
Colorado. And the finances show that Anadarko has paid a
significant amount of money to Protect Colorado.
Ms. Porter. So, this group, the so-called Protect Colorado,
has very tight ties with the PR firm Pac/West. Nearly 80
percent of Protect Colorado's expenditures from 2016 to 2018
were payments to Pac/West.
Given the known PR firm tactics mobilizing these third
parties, do you think it is likely that Pac/West might have
hired these men to engage in following the signature gatherer?
Ms. Foster. I know that our first signature-gathering firm
specifically mentioned Pac/West when they described these types
of opposition tactics. And as you stated, there is significant
monetary connection there, as well.
Ms. Porter. This screenshot I just showed came from a video
the Committee obtained of two people following a canvasser in a
residential neighborhood. In that video, one of the two
people--the two gentleman I believe it is, following the
canvasser--told the canvasser that if she wasn't comfortable
with them following her, she should ``put away your petition.''
Were those paid followers or the PR firm that hired them to
pose as counter-protesters ever held accountable for this kind
of intimidation tactic interfering with her speech?
Ms. Foster. No.
Ms. Porter. Thank you.
With that, I will now recognize Mr. Hice or his designee
for 5 minutes.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair. Very interesting.
Actually, today--it was just coming out today--this
Committee, House Natural Resources Committee, staff is putting
out a report. The report is titled, ``The Role of Public
Relations Firms in Preventing Action on Climate Change.'' This
is not even yet on the Committee website. But yesterday, Clean
Creatives is tweeting about this. They have a copy of it. Not
yet even on the Committee's, the Majority's website, not
public. Amazing how Clean Creatives got this. We have Clean
Creatives yet again collaborating with the Majority, getting
information before anybody else has that information, getting
information about subpoenas before anyone else has, or getting
reports before anyone else has it.
This is just absolute insanity, what is going on here. And
the real investigation ought to be taking place about that type
of collaboration. But here we are, going through--Ms. Arena
mentioned--the unethical PR practices, things like fake
protesters, not knowing who is paying for it, harassing
behaviors. This type of stuff that I mentioned even now becomes
a part of it all, with what is going on here, and this whole
thing is unethical, what we are watching.
Ms. Cooke, let me go to you. In your opinion, what would
happen if the United States just stopped producing oil and gas
like many of these activist groups are clamoring for? What
would happen?
Ms. Cooke. It would be catastrophic. I will tell you what.
You wouldn't have this hearing today. Civilization, the economy
as we know it, would certainly collapse. And I don't think you
need a computer modeling out 100 years to figure that out.
But it is more. Think about this, the last 2 years with
COVID, how many single-use syringes were necessary, and those
were plastic, that you could dispose of. That is fossil fuels.
The helmet that your child wears in any sports activity--I had
a bike accident a couple of years ago. A fossil fuel-based
helmet saved my life. Glasses saved my eyes. It is in
everything. They are in everything.
And it has been a more efficient, more effective use of
fossil fuels which has actually lowered emissions over the last
couple of decades. I mean, we have gotten better with it. It
spurs innovation and technology, and that is what allows us to
use it more efficiently, more effectively.
Develop the technology to capture any emissions or go in
another direction, to nuclear or something like that. But I
can't imagine us ever, ever--it would be catastrophic,
catastrophic if we didn't have----
Dr. Hice. It would be catastrophic.
Ms. Cooke. Yes.
Dr. Hice. Thank you for your answer. It would be
catastrophic.
And it is amazing to me that, as we speak here today, China
is in the process of making 50 of the largest coal plants in
the world with no protections. They, obviously, are not
concerned with climate change. They are not concerned with
polluting the world. And, obviously, we right here are not
concerned with them doing that, either. We have the cleanest
coal in the world, and we have witnesses here today who can't
even determine if they prefer natural gas over coal. Absolutely
stunning.
Ms. Cooke, let me come back to you. I recognize the
importance of sharing how the daily lives of Americans were
impacted by misguided policies. We want truth. All of us want
truth out there. Your testimony described your efforts to
provide an outlet for Coloradoans to share how anti-fracking
measures would affect them. Could you briefly share some of
those stories?
Ms. Cooke. Yes, there was----
Dr. Hice. You have about 1 minute.
Ms. Cooke. Raul, a welder. He was the son of migrant
workers who worked for ancillary support services for the oil
and gas industry. He worked with his two sons. It was all about
opportunity, jobs, future growth for him and his family. If
that had passed, likely his livelihood would have been shut
down.
There was a volunteer firefighter, a young woman in New
Raymer, Colorado. The oil and gas industry provided them all of
the latest and greatest equipment so that she could be of
service and help save lives in her community.
Dr. Hice. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Porter. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Khanna, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to Chair
Porter and Chair Grijalva for your leadership on this important
issue. And I appreciate your looking at the misinformation that
oil companies have been engaged in.
I know Chair Porter and Chair Grijalva have been working on
this issue, and I have been working on it with Chair Maloney.
We have a hearing tomorrow to go over a lot of the
misinformation that Big Oil has engaged in since the 1970s, and
that they continue to mislead the public about, spending money
on clean tech initiatives that are not actually taking place.
Now, if we could put on the screen one of the ads that
Exxon ran, that would be great.
[Slide.]
Mr. Khanna. I think it is up because it is virtual.
And my question, I guess, for our witnesses, is how does an
ad like that even get made?
And what would you say are the consequences of an ad like
this?
Ms. Arena. I am sorry. Are you calling on one of us
specifically?
Mr. Khanna. Yes. Ms. Arena, you go first.
Ms. Arena. I can't see what ad you are referring to, but I
would say in general how an ad like that gets made is a client
comes to an ad firm or a PR firm with a brief. They want to
express their commitment to green tech, whether it is carbon
capture or whatever it is that they are doing. And the ads get
made.
The point is that most of these ads--almost all of them,
according to a recent study by Grant Brown--contain factual
omissions and distortions, as well as climate delay frames. And
they are being amplified very aggressively.
So, again, these corporations are over-indexing their
public reputation on efforts that only represent a minimal
aspect of their normal business.
Mr. Khanna. And Ms. Arena, would a PR firm push back on an
ad if it had misleading claims, or do they just publish
whatever the oil companies want?
Ms. Arena. Obviously, it differs from agency to agency.
There is a culture inside agencies where you are a little
more resistant to pushing back against the client brief,
because it means you could lose the business. So, there is some
pressure to kind of execute on a client's wish.
Having said this, there is also responsibility within the
agency world to be familiar with the science. The question
about coal versus natural gas is an important one, and the
questions about trade-offs are important because whoever is
marketing natural gas needs to understand the dangers of
methane, the fact that methane has 80 times the warming power
of CO2. We need basic scientific literacy within
agencies, and that literacy is either non-existent or too low.
So, that gap needs to close.
Mr. Khanna. Ms. Arena, one of the things that Chair Porter
and her Committee discovered is that there is this website with
30 million hits, which says that Exxon is committing to
developing safe and reliable energy and mitigating the climate
crisis.
Is Exxon doing that, and was it responsible for the PR firm
to be publishing such a bold, bold claim?
Ms. Arena. Well, Exxon, I think about 8 percent of Exxon's
capital expenditures are devoted to clean energy. And it is
certainly making a massive effort to over-index its public
reputation on that small 8 percent it is really a fossil fuel
company. But oil and gas production continues to be its main
focus.
So, I do think that this over-indexing is unethical and
needs to be policed.
Mr. Khanna. And how would you police it? I mean, I didn't
even know it was 8 percent. So, that is even more than I
expected.
But I mean, your words, you say it is unethical, and you
say that it needs to be policed. I guess my last question would
be how should we do that here in Congress?
Our Committee on Oversight is working closely with Chair
Porter, Chair Grijalva. How can we collectively police this
over-indexing?
Ms. Arena. From a perspective of over-indexing, I think
rules around disclosure is what needs to happen.
Most of these ads, they don't contain blatant lies. They
contain a blend of factual omissions and distortions. So, it is
incumbent upon agencies to be familiar with climate delay
frames, how greenwashing works to be able to evaluate it and,
from a perspective of lawmakers, to force those disclosures,
especially around the third-party mobilization efforts, where
you have these Astroturf groups, different third parties,
proxies, where the fact that they are paid proxies is not
revealed.
And, again, these companies are engaging in policy matters.
They are not using these practices to sell products. They are
using these practices to engage in policy matters. And I think
that is what makes this issue even more pointed.
Ms. Porter. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
will now recognize the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Rosendale,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Cooke, I have a couple of very big-picture principles
and concepts to go over with you. If you could, answer a few
questions for me. Can you walk us through the relationship
between the grid reliability and the energy transition?
Ms. Cooke. Well, I would say currently it is not really a
transition. I am worried we are actually going over a cliff.
If we switch to predominantly undispatchable, non-
dispatchable, or unreliable resources and put them on a grid,
providing--and this is going to sound kind of geeky--but poor
quality, too much power at one time, not enough at another, the
grid has to have balance. Electricity has to be used
immediately, and it has to always be in balance.
When you have sources like wind and solar--and I am not
saying there is not a place for them, I am just saying when you
have sources like wind and solar that aren't reliable in the
sense of they are either spiky or they have times of the day
when they aren't working, it makes the grid more fragile. It is
less resilient, it is unstable. And you will see things like
blackouts, brownouts, or, in some cases, a complete failure.
Baseload power is baseload for a reason. And when you look
at capacity factors, we need to be investing in things that can
provide stable, reliable, clean, abundant, affordable power
when we need it.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Ms. Cooke. And I will tell you
that I experienced the blackouts in February 2020 at a time
when the weather conditions in Montana were about 20 below
zero. And the folks in Texas were experiencing the same types
of issues. And we witnessed the near collapse of the entire
power grid, which brings me to my next question.
Do you agree the grid reliability and energy security are
valid public policy concerns?
Ms. Cooke. Absolutely, 100 percent, some of the single most
important public policy concerns.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much. And would you respond
to accusations that discussing grid reliability, energy
security, and climate goals together constitute greenwashing or
disinformation?
Ms. Cooke. Listen, I don't think any time you hear another
voice, even if you disagree with it, it is not disinformation.
It is simply somebody in the public arena having a debate. I
get it. You don't like those people. I get it. But that doesn't
mean we don't have valid concerns.
And I will tell you what. If you want to see devastating
consequences for the environment, see a grid collapse, see what
that looks like when people are then burning whatever they can
get their hands on to heat their homes or to cook food.
It is not disinformation just because you don't agree with
it. It is another perspective that deserves to be heard and,
frankly, must be heard.
And, by the way, that is how we come to the best solutions.
I trust Americans. I trust voters. I trust legislators to look
at all sides and do the right thing. Public policy
organizations like mine, all we do is provide you the
information. What you do with it is up to you. But we provide
you the information so you can make sound public policy
decisions, and that means hearing my perspective on energy
security and grid stability.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you. And Ms. Cooke, it has been
demonstrated factually that the world is going to need oil and
gas products for decades to come, not only for our energy, but
because of all the by-products that are also generated by each
and every one of these.
Could you describe the benefits of having oil and gas
produced here in the United States with the highest
environmental standards and labor standards, rather than
imported countries like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela?
Ms. Cooke. Yes. Where I lived in Colorado, Weld County,
Colorado, which was one of the highest oil and gas-producing
counties in the country, 25,000 wells, and I might be wrong on
that, but 95 percent of them are hydraulically fractured,
improving air quality every single day because of the strict
environmental standards that not just the United States, but
the state of Colorado, put on oil and gas producers.
Hydraulic fracturing alone, the ability to vertically and
then horizontally and directionally drill was absolutely
revolutionary in efficiency and emissions reduction.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you.
And Madam Chair, I see that my time has expired.
So, Ms. Cooke, thank you so much for your participation.
I yield back.
Ms. Porter. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the Chair
of the Full Committee on the House Natural Resources, the
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the
hearing, and diligence and hard work by yourself and the
Committee staff. It is much appreciated.
And the discussion today is not about ending gas and energy
access for the American people, but to expose and seek truth in
advertising from the gaslighting that Big Oil and Big Gas are
doing on the American people through public relations. Not just
firms, but specific strategies to keep the discussion from
being on common ground. And that common ground to me is fact.
It is science. And it is empirical information that people can
deal with.
And I think it is important to do that, because this is not
just about promoting the benefits of a particular company, but
it is about turning the discourse into something other than
empirical, fact-based, science-based discussions about what is
going on and how this is affecting the overall issue of climate
in this country and around the world.
But Dr. Aronczyk, why do gas and oil companies need PR
firms? What are the reasons these companies can't just do the
climate information/disinformation work by themselves?
Why can't Chevron just be the Chevron company that sends
out whatever information or disinformation they are sending
out? Why do they need a third party, a PR firm?
Dr. Aronczyk. There is a long-standing pattern of oil and
gas companies hiding behind their PR representatives for a
variety of reasons.
One, when it comes to some of these really underhanded
tactics we have been hearing about today, it is a desire to
distance themselves from the dirty work that is being done and
not to have their reputation tarnished.
But, also, we can see the need to be protected against
general reputational risk. These days it is very clear that
climate change is a real and present danger, and companies
don't want to be associated with the anti-environmental action.
So, they use public relations firms.
I think one of the most important reasons is that PR firms
are experts in the business when it comes to long-term planning
and strategy to promote industry viewpoints and to de-
legitimize advocates and advocacy for environmental action and
climate change action.
PR firms are able to coordinate across industry sectors so
they can work with oil, gas, chemicals, pesticides, mining,
because they have clients in all of those sectors. So, that
kind of expertise is what fossil fuel companies rely on when
they work with public relations firms.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Now, Ms. Foster, yourself and members of Colorado Rising,
motivated to start a campaign for increased fracking buffer
zones. And you kept that going when the opposition was clearly
very strong. What toll did it take on you, personally?
Ms. Foster. Yes, this was extremely personally detrimental
to me. My health suffered greatly. I began to experience panic
attacks, insomnia, all as a result of being in a hyper-vigilant
state for extended amounts of time. It was an incredible amount
of stress that had long-term impacts on my health and others in
the campaign, as well.
Mr. Grijalva. And some of the tactics that were used in
opposition to your campaign and the campaign that came from the
people in Colorado--oil companies using PR firms--in a campaign
as straight-up as that, why continue to use outside firms in
opposition and pay them to do so?
Ms. Foster. When we first contracted with a firm, we
realized that that was a critical piece of the equation to
obtaining the signatures we needed to make the ballot. It is an
incredibly difficult process and very expensive.
And once we started to have concerns about the loyalty and
the commitment of the firm, we were already deep into the
campaign. Many other firms were already contracted out, and we
didn't feel that we had the time to pivot and start the entire
operation over again.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
I yield back, and thank you very much again, Madam Chair.
Ms. Porter. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Graves.
Are you able to question? You are up.
Mr. Graves, the gentleman from Louisiana, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I am
excited about this hearing because we are talking about
misrepresenting the truth in this hearing today. We are talking
about misrepresenting the truth to the American people. We are
talking about, effectively, lying to people. That is what this
hearing is about today.
We have listened over the last 18 months as we have heard
people say that we are aggressively carrying out this new
energy agenda for the purpose of addressing climate change and
reducing emissions. But the reality is that what has happened
is we have actually seen emissions go up, not down. Let me say
that again: under this Administration's policies designed to
address climate change, we have watched emissions go up, not
down.
At the same time, we are in a situation now to where one-
fourth of all Americans, one-fourth of all Americans in this
country, are in a situation where they have to decide if they
are going to cover groceries, if they are going to cover
healthcare costs, or if they are going to pay their utility
bills. We are seeing record inflation, and it is a result of
what is happening.
This right here, respondents who forego necessary expenses,
such as medicine or food, in order to pay an energy bill. So,
they are giving up medicine or food in order to pay energy
bills. This is the outcome of the Biden administration policies
on the American people. It is unaffordable.
I mean, looking at some of these percentages--again, in
Texas, 34 percent of the respondents have said that they can't
afford, that they have had to forego food or grocery costs in
order to pay their utility bills.
Look, so folks are saying, wait a minute, the Biden
administration is doing a great job with energy. You actually
have to go back to the 1940s, the 1940s, to find an
administration that has leased fewer acres of land for energy
production. The 1940s--take a look at this. I would take JFK, I
would take Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter, during the first 19
months of his administration, leased 100 times more acres of
land for oil and gas production than we have seen under the
Biden administration. Ronald Reagan, the big line up there, 375
times more energy.
So, folks can be sitting there saying, ``Well, wait a
minute, I am worried about emissions.'' Let me say it again.
This Administration's energy policies not only have made it
unaffordable to cover groceries or medicine, where 25 percent
of all Americans, one in every four Americans, have had to
decide am I going to pay my utility bill, buy food, or pay for
medicine, but they have also resulted in energy emissions going
up, not down.
And when I say up, let's be clear--up from a Trump
baseline. Under the Trump administration, the emissions went
down an average of 25 percent a year. What objective are we
achieving?
If we are talking about misleading the American people,
let's be clear on who it is that is misleading the American
people. It is the Biden administration. The Biden
administration is misleading the American people, acting as
though their energy strategies are resulting in lower emissions
and addressing climate change. It is not. And it is pushing
emissions to other countries that are growing up globally, as
well. Who can look at this and think that this makes sense?
I am glad we are talking about people that are dishonest,
because we need to spend more time. Data doesn't lie, and the
facts show that this Administration's energy policies are
pushing people into poverty, are pushing jobs overseas, and are
making energy unaffordable.
But, wait, it is not just limited to families.
[Slide.]
Mr. Graves. Our Sheriff from Terrebonne Parish, Sheriff
Soignet, I asked him. I said, ``If you weren't spending these
dollars on fuel and higher electricity utility costs, these are
dollars that would be going into additional officers,
equipment, and training.'' Sheriff Soignet says that is exactly
right. He is confirming that what has happened is that, as a
result of the Biden administration's energy policies, his
sheriff's department is spending more money on those things,
which is undermining his ability to actually fight crime and do
the things that he is supposed to be doing.
So, I can't say it enough. I am glad we are talking about
misleading the American people, because we have the chief
misleader who is out there telling the American people that
these policies are working, and they are not.
I yield back.
Ms. Porter. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
I was thinking, people ask--it just seems like Democrats
and Republicans aren't friends with each other, and let me tell
you. I was friends--it was an honor to be friends with a former
Member named John Dingell. And it wasn't because we had a lot
of politics in common. He was just a very honest man. And I
understood he cared deeply about people and people that needed
a hand up.
And that is why it was such a shame when he was Chairman of
Energy and Commerce, and he was excited about doing something
like Obamacare. He had been pushing for it for decades. We
disagreed on that. But he refused to push through the cap-and-
trade bill because, as he famously said that got him fired as
Chairman by Speaker Pelosi, he said that ``I am not bringing it
to my Committee because that bill is not only a tax, it is a
great big tax.'' And he knew it didn't really affect the
wealthy. It was inconvenient for them to pay a little more. But
who it really crushed was the poor and the lower middle class.
And that is what is happening in America, as this
Administration, as my friend, Garret Graves, has pointed out--
we are not leasing as much. We are cutting back on the energy
resources with which this country has been blessed.
And those of us that have grown up around drilling don't
mind it. As my predecessor--who was a Democrat at the time--
Ralph Hall, said, ``Look, I don't mind drilling anywhere in the
world except on my grave, and I am OK if you slant hole under
my grave,'' because he knew how much it lowered the price of
energy and helped people that didn't have.
But I am particularly concerned about the efforts of the
Majority party here. It seems an effort at intimidation because
the firm is advertising and trying to point out the good, and
it is helpful to people to be able to pay less for energy.
And it would be helpful if people weren't misled about
electric cars. They are generally more expensive. We are going
to have so much lithium batteries that we won't know what to do
with it. It is going to be a huge problem. We are having to buy
so much from China with regard to rare earth metals. But you
can't make a vehicle without some fossil fuels.
And then you have the problem of--if you want to plug in
your car, as Thomas Massie pointed out, to charge it, it is the
equivalent of plugging in 17 refrigerators. If everybody just
has one car, we are going to have blackouts, brownouts all over
the country. That is not good for people that barely are
getting by.
And let me just point out when this Committee, the Majority
of this Committee, starts thinking about trying to intimidate
people into not bragging about the benefits of their products,
Ayn Rand said, ``When you see that in order to produce you need
to obtain permission from men who produce nothing, when you see
that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods but in
favors, when you see that people get richer by graft and by
pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against
them, but protect them against you, when you see corruption
being rewarded and honesty becoming a self sacrifice, you may
know that your society is doomed.''
And Natan Sharansky was in prison, in a gulag in Russia for
speaking up. He makes similar related comments. So, it concerns
me greatly for the future of America, and especially for the
poor, for the lower middle class, that are going to be so
harmed by this Administration's energy policy. We need to back
up and not try to intimidate witnesses.
I yield back.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much.
With that, with no further Members waiting to question, we
will begin to wrap up. I will offer my closing statement.
Today, we have heard about the ways that PR firms are paid
to engage in unethical tactics that intimidate and silence
Americans who are exercising their rights to support actions
that combat climate change.
I am looking forward to hearing more tomorrow at the
hearing about oil company profits and climate disinformation
that is being held by my colleague, Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney,
in the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
But for all that we have seen here today, I know there is
more, and it is worse. We initiated the subpoena process for
FTI Consulting, which has one of the worst reputations in the
business. The negotiations are ongoing. The trajectory is,
sadly, not good.
What are they trying to hide? Is it their creation of fake
grassroots groups for their clients to hide behind?
Was it the creation of fake social media profiles to track
the plans of activist groups, or is there something worse?
The harder FTI Consulting fights, the more it appears that
they have a lot to lose by having their tactics exposed through
oversight. We are just getting started.
I want to close by thanking my colleague, Mr. Hice, my
Republican colleague, Mr. Hice, for identifying the report, the
Role of Public Relations Firms in Preventing Action on Climate
Change that the Committee has released. And I encourage people
who are interested in this topic to review the report and, in
particular, the documentary evidence of unethical tactics and
climate disinformation that make up the bulk of the report.
With that, I will recognize the Ranking Member for any
closing statement he may wish to make.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just keep my
comments brief.
I think it is important for the American public to hear
what is going on in this Committee hearing today. What this is
is yet another attempt to silence the viewpoints from one side
of the aisle from being brought forward. Firms that promote
different products and entities have been around since our
country was first created. And we all, on a regular basis, hear
about the newest product, about the greatest product, about the
new inventions that are coming forth, and that is throughout
all industries.
And I don't think that the oil and gas industry is any
different. I think that, when we start trying to utilize this
body to silence one side of a discussion or another side of the
discussion, what we do is suppress the very innovation and
technology that has brought us to this place in history, that
has given us the ability to utilize so many of our resources,
and to be able to develop them in a more environmentally sound
method, to be able to make sure that our labor standards are
the highest and greatest in the world. And by trying to keep
some side of the discussion suppressed, or intimidate them from
bringing their message forward, I think, is always a bad idea,
that more information is better for all of us.
So, I do appreciate the hearing, and I would yield back.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Porter. Thank you, and I want to thank the witnesses
for their valuable testimony and the Members for their
questions.
The members of this Committee may have some additional
questions for witnesses, and we will ask that you respond to
those in writing.
Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must
submit witness questions within 3 business days following the
hearing, and the hearing record will be held open for 10
business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Porter
Screen captures of protesters following signature gatherers in Colorado
for the Proposition 112 campaign
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Leaked e-mail from Anadarko, a major oil company in the
Colorado area, regarding a hotline to report the location of
signature gatherers to deploy protesters to the location
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ExxonMobil ad conflating ``decarbonizing heavy industry'' with
carbon capture
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Porter
-- Committee Report entitled, ``The Role of Public Relations
Firms in Preventing Action on Climate Change''
-- ``The Power Of'' ad from the American Petroleum Institute