SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Five Questions Big Oil CEOs Must Answer Tomorrow
In anticipation of tomorrow's House Oversight Committee hearing on Big Oil's ongoing campaign to spread disinformation and manipulate Americans against widely-popular, commonsense climate soluti
WASHINGTON
In anticipation of tomorrow's House Oversight Committee hearing on Big Oil's ongoing campaign to spread disinformation and manipulate Americans against widely-popular, commonsense climate solutions, government watchdog Accountable.US called on the CEOs who will testify to finally be honest with lawmakers and the American people.
"For too long, oil companies have skirted responsibility for their harmful campaign of disinformation aimed at swaying Americans against commonsense policies to protect public lands and fight the climate crisis," said Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US. "It shouldn't have taken several dodged hearings and a subpoena threat for these executives to come before Congress. With the American people watching, will these executives own up to their misinformation, or keep trying to hide behind lies and spin?"
Thursday's hearing is one part of the committee's larger investigation into leading oil and gas companies' efforts to misinform the American public. Accountable.US called on the CEOs who will testify to answer the following questions about their companies' demonstrated history of hypocrisy:
1. The oil and gas industry has repeatedly claimed that it didn't need any bailouts during the pandemic. But in reality, its lobbying groups demanded tax breaks for the industry in the CARES Act, and reports show that oil and gas companies got at least $3.1 billion in pandemic bailout money. Why do you continue to argue that your industry did not receive federal pandemic support when the facts clearly prove otherwise?
In March 2020, major oil industry lobbying group the American Petroleum Institute (API) claimed the oil industry didn't need any pandemic bailouts, with the group's CEO, Mike Sommers, even going as far as to write an op-ed in the Washington Examiner to underscore the point. As recently as last month, Sommers was still hammering this line, stating during a podcast appearance that "even in the worst parts of that pandemic, you didn't see our industry, you know, asking for bailouts. In fact, we were fighting bailouts."
But this is far from the truth: API lobbied for CARES Act tax breaks in the early days of the pandemic, and government watchdog Accountable.US found that API's member companies got $3.1 billion in value from various pandemic aid programs.
2. Oil and gas company shareholders have repeatedly sought to vote on climate change initiatives within the company and have been met with opposition from companies. How can you claim to care about fighting climate change while opposing efforts to do so from your own shareholders?
Even as major oil and gas companies have attempted to greenwash their reputations to the public, behind the scenes, these companies are working to fight even their own shareholders on supporting climate initiatives and making substantive changes to their operations.
Exxon, BP, Chevron, and Shell all opposed shareholder initiatives to combat climate change, including efforts to bring their companies' policies in line with goals and standards set by the Paris Climate Agreement. Exxon went so far as to get the SEC to bar the company's shareholders from voting on a proposal that would have required it to disclose its emission reduction goals.
3. Oil and gas companies have a decades-long history of denying climate science and refuting the link between air pollution and its detrimental effects on people's health -- especially those in majority-Black and Native communities who are disproportionately affected by extractive activities. Do you acknowledge the increased health risk posed by fossil fuel pollution?
A scientist commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute testified before Congress in 1997 calling the link between air pollution and mortality "weak." Around the same time, Exxon published a study claiming there was "no substantive basis" for believing small particle pollution was leading to more deaths despite internal memos noting the dangers of fossil fuel pollution in 1967.
Importantly, this pollution, that continues to this day, disproportionately harms communities of color, especially Black and Native communities. A VICE report earlier this year revealed that over 70% of Chevron and Exxon's air pollution is dumped on people of color. Such exposure to pollutants can lead to adverse and life-threatening health consequences including increased risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, asthma, and more.
4. With more and more research showing that oil, gas, and coal development must be curbed in order to reach emissions goals essential to avoiding a climate catastrophe, how do you square your claims to care about the environment with your plans to increase fossil fuel production?
The International Energy Alliance released a report this year stating there must be no new oil, gas, or coal development to achieve net-zero goals by 2050. The UN released a report calling for fossil fuel production to rapidly fall if we want to avoid "severe climate disruption."
But regardless of the science and evidence, from 2019 to 2030, ExxonMobil is planning the largest increases in oil and gas production, increasing by 52% and 27% respectively -- even as it attempts to publicly paint itself as a climate steward.
5. Big Oil companies have repeatedly fought for "voluntary" emissions reduction strategies despite ample evidence proving that they aren't nearly as effective in curbing emissions as government mandates. Looking at the industry's record, how can you expect the American people to allow oil and gas companies to continue using voluntary climate mitigation methods when they have consistently proven ineffective?
The American Petroleum Institute proudly touts the effectiveness of voluntary emissions reduction strategies and plans in lieu of government action in order to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis. Yet companies on API's board have been responsible for nearly $38 billion in environmental penalties -- API has rewarded companies days after they have caused environmental disasters.
Additionally, voluntary pledges to reduce flaring have proven ineffective as companies, including BP and Exxon, continued to flare regularly after pledging to stop. Flaring increased annually from 2017 to 2019.
Accountable.US is a nonpartisan watchdog that exposes corruption in public life and holds government officials and corporate special interests accountable by bringing their influence and misconduct to light. In doing so, we make way for policies that advance the interests of all Americans, not just the rich and powerful.
LATEST NEWS
After Previously Voting With GOP, 52 House Dems Targeted to Oppose 'Nonprofit Killer' Bill
"Every nonprofit across the spectrum of human rights and progressive values is up in arms, begging Democrats to overcome their greed and their spite, and not to hand President-elect Trump the ability to destroy any nonprofit he dislikes with the flick of a pen," wrote one campaigner.
Nov 20, 2024
House Republicans have revived an effort to pass the so-called "nonprofit killer" bill—a piece of legislation that, if passed, would hand U.S. President-elect Donald Trump the ability to sanction civil society groups, including government watchdogs, news outlets, and humanitarian organizations.
A vote on the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act (H.R. 9495), which would allow the Treasury Department to remove tax-exempt status from nonprofits deemed "terrorist supporting organizations," is expected on Thursday.
But a wide coalition of organizations and individuals have voiced their opposition to the bill, including multiple groups that have mobilized to pressure House members to vote against it, particularly the 52 Democrats who previously voted in favor of it.
The controversial bill was blocked last week when 144 Democrats and one Republican voted against the bill after it was fast-tracked under a procedure that requires two-thirds majority support for passage. Republicans then brought it back through the House Rules Committee, teeing it up for a simple majority floor vote.
The 52 Democrats who voted in favor of the bill include Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.).
Groups including Muslims for Progressive Values, Fight for the Future, Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the union The NewsGuild-CWA have launched an advocacy effort to pressure those 52 Democrats to flip their votes and urge all members of the House to vote no on the bill.
"H.R. 9495 is a threat to our basic right to free speech, dissent, and advocacy. Democrats who claim to defend democracy must be called out for their SUPPORT of this bill. This bill will silence non-profits who speak up for human rights of Palestinians, reproductive rights, against deportations or ANY government policies," wrote Muslims for Progressive Values.
Some of Democrats who voted in favor have since said they will no longer support the bill.
Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) released the following statement on Monday: "I have heard loud and clear from folks in my district and understand the concerns of my constituents, non-profit leaders and their staff. The incoming administration's recent Cabinet nominations give me little faith that this tool would be used as originally intended. Therefore, I have decided to vote against H.R. 9495 and will continue acting in our district's and nation's best interests."
There is fear that the bill would, in particular, have a chilling impact on Palestinian rights organizations and pro-Palestine speech.
"This bill was designed to criminalize organizations and activists who oppose the U.S.'s unconditional support of Israel's genocide of Palestinians and the slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Such legislation threatened the constitutional rights of American nonprofits, houses of worship, and advocacy organizations—regardless of political orientation. Lawmakers must understand the serious, long-term dangers of advancing bills or investigations that seek to suppress lawful activism and silence dissent," according to a joint statement issued by Arab and Muslim American groups last week.
Lia Holland, the campaigns and communications director at Fight for the Future, said in a statement that "it's a disappointment but not a surprise to find Democrats voting for a bill to punish student protests against genocide on the wrong side of their entire values system. Over and over again, we've seen how legislative efforts designed to oppress dissent and silence speech end up burning their progenitors."
"H.R. 9495 is no exception—now, every nonprofit across the spectrum of human rights and progressive values is up in arms, begging Democrats to overcome their greed and their spite, and not to hand President-elect Trump the ability to destroy any nonprofit he dislikes with the flick of a pen," Holland added.
Others have also critiqued the proposed legislation on broader civil rights and free speech grounds.
"H.R. 9495 provides no due process or oversight, creating a tool for political retaliation under the guise of 'fighting terrorism.' Trump would abuse this power to retaliate against any [organization] that challenges his agenda. The 52 Dems who initially supported it must reverse course," wrote former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
Kia Hamadanchy, senior federal policy counsel at the ACLU, said that "every time we give the president new powers and more authority to act alone, we create an open invitation for abuse by the executive branch."
"While the ACLU would oppose this legislation no matter who the president is, and there is no question it could be weaponized against groups on both ends of the ideological spectrum," Hamadanchy added, "the rhetoric we saw on the campaign trail from the president-elect is even more reason for Congress to reject this bill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP-Controlled House Ethics Panel Votes to Keep Gaetz Report Secret
"The American people deserve transparency from their elected officials, especially when it comes to evaluating the nominee to become our nation’s chief law enforcement officer," said one critic.
Nov 20, 2024
Critics slammed the Republican-controlled U.S. House Ethics Committee on Wednesday after the panel decided against releasing a report on sexual misconduct allegations against former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, who has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to serve as attorney general.
Committee Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) told reporters that "there was not an agreement by the committee to release the report," while Rep. Susan Wild (D-Penn.) clarified that "a vote was taken."
Julie Tsirkin, congressional correspondent for NBC News, said Wild "suggested all Democrats voted yes, all Republicans voted no."
Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America, called on the committee to "release the full report immediately" and warned that "failing to make it public would be a betrayal of the public trust and a dangerous precedent for our democracy."
Committee investigators have been examining allegations that Gaetz paid to have sex with a 17-year-old at parties while he was serving in Congress.
The investigators obtained records showing that Gaetz paid more than $10,000 to two women who testified before the committee. The records showed 27 PayPal and Venmo transfers from Gaetz between July 2017 and January 2019, some of which were allegedly payments for sex.
The allegations were also part of an FBI investigation into whether Gaetz was involved in sex trafficking of a minor. That probe was dropped without charges.
"The American people deserve transparency from their elected officials, especially when it comes to evaluating the nominee to become our nation’s chief law enforcement officer," said Harvey. "The Senate can't fulfill its constitutional duty to advise and consent on the president's nominees without access to the report and all evidence of the numerous allegations of Gaetz's sexual misconduct."
Gaetz abruptly resigned from Congress hours after Trump announced his nomination. The resignation meant Gaetz was no longer under the congressional committee's jurisdiction, and several lawmakers suggested the former Florida congressman aimed to avoid the release of the report. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has pushed for the report to remain confidential considering Gaetz's resignation.
As the House committee was weighing whether to release the documents, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee met with Gaetz ahead of his confirmation process. Vice President-elect JD Vance (R-Ohio) suggested on social media as the meetings were taking place that senators should support Trump's nomination, saying the party rode the president-elect's "coattails" to a Senate and House majority.
"He deserves a cabinet that is loyal to the agenda he was elected to implement," Vance said.
The House Ethics Committee report could still be released, either by someone who leaks it to the media or a lawmaker who could read it into the congressional record—an act that could lead to censure or expulsion from Congress.
As it stands, podcast host Brian Tyler Cohen said, "the House Ethics Committee Republicans are now complicit in trying to bury a potentially 'highly damaging' report into Matt Gaetz."
"Trump says jump, Republicans say 'how high,'" he said, "even if it means shielding sex trafficking of a minor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Use of AI Weapons in Gaza Denounced as Blatant Violation of Treaty Obligations
"As the Israeli military weaponizes AI for oppression, the world must confront this hypocrisy and hold it accountable to save lives," said Jewish Voice for Peace.
Nov 20, 2024
Amid reporting that the Israel Defense Forces is using an artificial intelligence weapons system touted as improving "operator lethality," Jewish Voice for Peace said Israel's use of technological warfare is "nothing new"—but pointed out that the new reports follow the country's signing of "the first global 'safety' AI treaty."
The Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, spearheaded by the Council of Europe, was signed by Israel in September, and "claims to be a legal framework governing AI systems to mitigate risks to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law—but the Israeli military is using AI to do precisely the opposite," said JVP.
The Jewish-led advocacy group spoke out after Middle East Eye (MEE)reported that the IDF has been using a weapons system in Gaza that came out of a collaboration between Israeli Weapons Industries and the Indian company Adani Defence & Aerospace.
The AI system, Arbel, was first unveiled at a defense expo in Gandhinagar, Gujarat in October 2022. MEE reported it is capable of turning "machine guns and assault rifles into computerized killing machines," using algorithms to increase Israeli soldiers' chances of hitting targets with accuracy and "efficiency."
The huge death toll in Gaza—which is conservatively estimated to be about 44,000 but which nearly 100 medical professionals estimated to be more than 118,000 last month, based on their experiences in hospitals there—has previously been linked to Israel's use of AI.
As Common Dreams reported in April, an AI machine called Lavender has been used by the IDF to devise "kill lists," with the military deeming 100 civilian deaths for every Hamas official an acceptable error rate. In December, the Israeli outlets +972 Magazine and Local Callreported that another AI machine called Gospel has been used to target dozens of buildings per day.
Defense analysts told MEE that Arbel has likely been used to "carry out the carnage of Palestinians in a more efficient manner in Gaza."
Antony Loewenstein, an independent journalist who tracks the use of technological warfare in Gaza and the West Bank, told MEE that as Israel has used numerous AI systems over the past 13 months, "targeting civilians was the point. It was never about just going after Hamas."
"I have spoken to people in Gaza, I have seen the direct human impact of this kind of killing," he told the outlet. "It is horrific."
Research analyst Noah Sylvia of the Royal United Services Institute in London told MEE that the IDF "has demonstrated a disregard for civilian life in Gaza to the point of routinely targeting children with small arms, meaning that Arbel could easily be used to make the killing of civilians, of children, more efficient."
The impact of the AI system depends "on the military's operating procedures and commitment to international humanitarian law," said Sylvia.
Humanitarian groups and human rights experts have said Israel is blatantly disregarding international law with its near-total blockade of aid into Gaza and its attacks—some with U.S. weapons—on civilians infrastructure.
JVP said the IDF's use of Arbel indicates Israel is also violating the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, and noted reports that the military has also used "facial recognition technology and advanced weapons to monitor, silence dissent, cut internet access, and obscure its war crimes."
Marwa Fatafta, Middle East policy and advocacy director for Access Now, warned that Israel's partnering with India—where AI companies reportedly have the sixth-highest AI investments in the world at $7.73 billion—may provide "a new and terrifying blueprint for tech-enabled warfare... this time through Indian-Israel military tech."
"Rarely does a technology stay dormant in one location," Fatafta said. "The lawlessness and impunity in which Israel commits egregious crimes with the use of AI should terrify everyone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular