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
climate denial
Toyota Exposed for Funding Climate Denialism Designed to Slow EV Transition
"Instead of innovating, Toyota has bankrolled lobbyists and climate-hostile lawmakers to help it defeat EVs," according to Public Citizen.
Jan 14, 2025
Nearly three decades after its introduction, the hybrid Toyota Prius is still associated with environmental action and the scientific consensus that fossil fuel emissions, including those from vehicles, must be reduced to avoid the worst effects of planetary heating.
But a Tuesday report from watchdog group Public Citizen reveals how Toyota has spent recent years becoming the largest funder of U.S. lawmakers who deny the existence of the climate emergency, and a major opponent to the expansion of electric vehicles.
In the report, titled Driving Denial, senior clean vehicles campaigner Adam Zuckerman explains how Toyota has emerged over the last three election cycles as the auto industry's top financial backer of climate deniers in Congress—donating to 207 of their campaigners.
Top climate-denying beneficiaries of Toyota include U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who received $10,000 from Toyota in during the 2024 cycle—the maximum amount allowed—and Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), who received $7,000 after he called for the end of EV tax credits and demanded the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) be eliminated.
Between 2020-24, Toyota's political action committee (PAC) has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to right-wing lawmakers including Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.)—giving a total of "$808,500 to the campaigns of congressional candidates that deny or question the existence of climate change," according to Public Citizen.
Despite Toyota's reputation as a hybrid car innovator, said Zuckerman, "the world's largest automaker has quietly spent the past several years building a powerful U.S. influence operation in an effort to delay the transition to electric vehicles."
"Funding a small army of climate-denying lawmakers, while lobbying aggressively against stronger emissions and fuel economy standards, is a volatile combination intended to roll back policies that protect our communities and planet," he said.
In addition to financing the campaigns of lawmakers who deny that fossil fuel emissions are heating the planet and contributing to more extreme wildfires, hurricanes, and other disasters, Toyota has also directly pushed back against climate regulations.
Three days after President-elect Donald Trump won the November election, Toyota Motor North America executive Jack Hollis falsely called tailpipe emissions standards introduced by California and the EPA "EV mandates" and claimed they will "remove consumer choice."
"Funding a small army of climate-denying lawmakers, while lobbying aggressively against stronger emissions and fuel economy standards, is a volatile combination intended to roll back policies that protect our communities and planet."
Hollis also wrote a Wall Street Journalop-ed called on the incoming Trump administration to dismantle Biden-era policies that push automakers to reduce emissions, and in December, Toyota announced it was donating $1 million to Trump's inauguration
"Instead of embracing a green energy future, Toyota has aggressively lobbied to delay and weaken climate action," Public Citizen's report reads.
Toyota's advocacy "has borne results," notes the report. "During the Biden administration, lobbying from Toyota and others forced the EPA to weaken an ambitious EPA plan to limit vehicle emissions. The changes slow the adoption of more stringent vehicle pollution limits, making it easier for EV laggards like Toyota to meet regulations without building electric vehicles."
While billing itself as a global climate leader in recent decades, Toyota was named by InfluenceMap as the third-worst company in the world for anti-climate lobbying, after only fossil fuel giants Chevron and ExxonMobil.
InfluenceMap's 2024 scorecard "highlights Toyota's lobbying efforts against emissions standards in the U.S. and Australia and against EV mandates in Canada and the United Kingdom, as well as Toyota's success in weakening emissions stands in the U.S. and fuel efficiency standards in Australia," reads the Public Citizen report.
While ramping up its lobbying efforts Toyota has invested in carbon-intensive hydrogen-powered vehicles such as the Mirai, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (HFCV) introduced in 2014. The Mirai has sold fewer than 25,000 units and has failed to provide consumers with the infrastructure needed for HFCVs, with just 60 hydrogen refueling stations in the U.S. and Canada—leading to a class action lawsuit against the automaker.
The company has pursued "a risky strategy that has left Toyota vulnerable to an influx of competitors who have leapfrogged the auto giant to build the next generation of vehicles," reads the report. "Instead of innovating, Toyota has bankrolled lobbyists and climate-hostile lawmakers to help it defeat EVs."
According to the report, the automaker's abandonment of EV innovation and embrace of climate denial begs the question: "In 20 years, how will the world think of Toyota?"
EVs, said Zuckerman, "are the future of the automotive industry, and if it fails to evolve, Toyota risks becoming the next Kodak or Blockbuster, corporate giants that fought innovation and paid the price for it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Killer CEOs of Big Oil
Their fortunes are the result of poisoning you, me, our children and grandchildren, every other living thing on Earth, and destroying the temperature stability of our atmosphere. This week it's horrifying to look out and see the world they are creating for the rest of us.
Jan 11, 2025
Public Citizen would like you to know that there are killers among us.
They wear $2,000 suits and travel in private jets, unbothered by the TSA or the teeming masses. Their children attend the finest universities in the world, and they vacation on private islands and yachts. Many “earn” more in a day than most Americans take home in a year; their positions ensure their heirs will never have to work a day in their lives.
Their fortunes are the result of poisoning you, me, our children and grandchildren, every other living thing on Earth, and destroying the temperature stability of our atmosphere. This week they’re arguably responsible, in part, for billions of dollars in losses, numerous deaths, and thousands of shattered lives in Southern California.
Illegitimate president-elect Trump is trying his best to cover for them, claiming that the fires ripping through the Los Angeles area are the fault of California’s Democratic governor, calling Gavin Newsome by a childish name to draw more attention to Trump’s efforts on behalf of the Republican Party’s most generous donors.
Oil industry executives and fossil fuel billionaires are the hands holding the smoking gun of climate change that have directly or indirectly caused tens of thousands of deaths and millions of people displaced worldwide over the past two decades. And now the fires in southern California.
Mainstream media is largely going along with Trump’s charade, choosing not to even mention — in the vast majority of their reports on the crisis — the role of climate change in the fires. And never, G-d forbid, mentioning the role of the fossil fuel industry in the climate change that has turned these fires from an annual nuisance into a hellscape.
It’s as frankly absurd as a TV news person reporting on a plane crash and, instead of asking aviation experts what caused it, simply lifting their collective shoulders with a helpless “shit happens” shrug.
But these fires — and the droughts and changing weather patterns that made them so severe — aren’t something that just happens by random happenstance, any more than an airliner crash.
And the oil industry has known for decades this day was coming.
In November, 1959, the famous scientist Edward Teller — the “Father of the H-Bomb” — was the keynote speaker at a conference on “The Energy of the Future” in New York, organized by the American Petroleum Institute and the Columbia Graduate School of Business. The news he conveyed to the assembled oil industry executives was stark:
“Whenever you burn conventional fuel, you create carbon dioxide. ... The carbon dioxide is invisible, it is transparent, you can’t smell it, it is not dangerous to health, so why should one worry about it? Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect ...
“It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.”
This shocking news apparently provoked a scramble in the oil industry, probably similar to when the asbestos industry learned in the 1930s that their product caused lung cancer (the mesothelioma that killed my father), or in 1939 when the tobacco industry learned that smoking also killed people.
They set out to determine if Teller’s prediction was true. He’d predicted that CO2 levels would reach the point where they’d begin to seriously melt the polar and Greenland ice caps and alter weather patterns within a few decades, telling the oil executives at that 1959 meeting:
“At present the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 2 per cent over normal. By 1970, it will be perhaps 4 per cent, by 1980, 8 per cent, by 1990, 16 per cent [about 360 parts per million, by Teller’s accounting], if we keep on with our exponential rise in the use of purely conventional fuels. By that time, there will be a serious additional impediment for the [heat] radiation leaving the earth.”
For the next decade, industry scientists went to work along with studies commissioned by major universities. One of the most well-known was a 1968 report the American Petroleum Institute hired the Stanford Research Institute to conduct. Its findings corroborated Teller’s prediction:
“Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000, and these could bring about climatic changes. ... there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe. ... pollutants which we generally ignore because they have little local effect, CO2 and submicron particles, may be the cause of serious world-wide environmental changes.”
It was the first of dozens of studies the industry paid for or knew about, all predicting pretty much exactly what’s happening right now in Los Angeles, including major reports in 1979, 1982, and 1991.
And then the “climate denial” began.
Fossil fuel billionaires and their oil companies funded think tanks to promote skepticism, pushed frontmen onto radio and TV to claim that climate scientists and people like Al Gore were “in it for the money,” and began funding the campaigns of politicians willing to exchange the future habitability of the planet for a few decades of power and wealth.
In 2015, the Union of Concerned Scientists documented decades of internal industry memos and strategy sessions that were organizing, funding, and detailing roughly three decades of lies foisted on the American Public. The industry and its executives’ efforts were all, apparently, in the service of preserving their income stream and avoiding any liability for the deaths they knew would one day come as a result of their product poisoning our atmosphere.
And now that day is here. Oil industry executives and fossil fuel billionaires are the hands holding the smoking gun of climate change that have directly or indirectly caused tens of thousands of deaths and millions of people displaced worldwide over the past two decades. And now the fires in southern California.
Two-thirds of voters, according to a 2024 poll, believe the fossil fuel industry and its pampered executives should be held civilly responsible for the damage climate change is causing, and a plurality want them to face criminal charges.
Public Citizen published a 2023 report titled “Charging Big Oil with Climate Homicide,” including legal rationales and possible strategies for holding the killers in suits accountable by state and local prosecutors.
Will Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman or California Attorney General Rob Bonta have the courage to hold these companies and/or their executives accountable for the lies and deceptions they’ve funded that this week are killing Angelinos?
Will enough people call their members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to provoke investigations that could lead to congressional action?
Will our media ever begin to call out Trump and the alleged climate lies and deceptions of the industry that owns him?
Keep ReadingShow Less
There Is No Such Thing as 'Normal' Trump Nominee
And Doug Burgum proves it. Backing false climate solutions is hardly less corrosive than outright climate denial when it comes to the goal of mitigating climate change.
Dec 15, 2024
Trump has spent the month since the election firing off a rapid torrent of Cabinet picks. His nominees generally fall into two types: obviously whacko (see Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, RFK Jr.) and superficially normal (think Marco Rubio, Doug Burgum, Pam Bondi). While the headline-grabbing scandals and general trumpery of the first group easily draw scorn, it’s important that we not grade the second group on a credulous curve, overlooking the economic interests behind their soothingly conventional manner.
That’s a lesson we should remember from the last Trump administration, when scandal-plagued appointees like Scott Pruitt at EPA and Ryan Zinke at Interior were replaced by more circumspect villains like Andrew Wheeler at EPA and David Bernhardt at Interior. Wheeler and Bernhardt wreaked havoc on environmental, public health, and public lands protection while evading the mockery invited by their predecessors.
Even a wannabe-authoritarian like Trump wants his administration to have a veneer of power and legitimacy, and the scandals of Pruitt and Zinke compromised that illusion. As I recapped for our series of Trump retrospectives, Pruitt “misspent millions in public funds on 24/7 private security, first-class plane tickets, chartered jets, and renovations, while misusing EPA staffers to find his wife a job and do his personal errands,” while Zinke “resigned amid over a dozen ongoing ethics investigations.” Mockery can be politically useful, insofar as it deflates authoritarian egos. But corruption doesn’t have to be sensational to be consequential—and those are the harder stories to tell.
Billionaire Burgum and His Billionaire Buddies
Trump’s pick for Interior Secretary and energy czar, the billionaire former software executive and North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, appears to be more in the mold of Bernhardt than Zinke: staunchly anti-regulation, pro-corporate, pro-oil.
Backing false climate solutions is hardly less corrosive than outright climate denial when it comes to the goal of mitigating climate change. It just makes Burgum a more slippery villain.
Bernhardt, a former oil lobbyist, had so many potential conflicts of interest at Interior that he walked around with a card listing them all. Burgum leases his family land for oil and gas drilling to Continental Resources, which is owned by his billionaire friend and collaborator Harold Hamm. Hamm’s name might be familiar to you, as he is the billionaire with whom Burgum is orchestrating Trump’s energy policies. Burgum also leases land to oil company Hess, whose billionaire CEO John Hess gave Burgum $25,000 for his 2016 gubernatorial campaign. Burgum’s spouse also owns over $100,000 of stock in fossil fuel companies, according to Burgum’s 2023 financial disclosure.
Harold Hamm organized the dinner between Trump and oil executives last spring where Trump asked for $1 billion in donations in order to demolish Biden’s climate agenda; Burgum attended it. (Eighteen days after that dinner, Hamm’s Continental Resources donated $1 million to Trump.) Hamm and other Big Oil executives present at that dinner have defied congressional Democrats’ requests for information about this meeting. John Hess, meanwhile, was scrutinized by the Biden administration’s Federal Trade Commission for colluding with OPEC and Saudi Arabia on oil pricing, and as a result of their preliminary investigation he was banned from joining Chevron’s board. Hess has said he may appeal this ban once Trump takes office. If confirmed, Burgum will have personal ties to these “drill-ionaires” in the crosshairs of federal oversight while helming the federal agency that leases the land and issues the permits to drillers.
Burgum told wealthy Trump donors that the “the No. 1 thing that President Trump could do on Day 1” would be to “stop the hostile attack against all American energy, and I mean all. Whether it’s baseload electricity, whether it’s oil, whether it’s gas, whether it’s ethanol, there is an attack on liquid fuels.” In reality, every single year of the Biden presidency, the U.S. produced more crude oil than any other nation at any other time, and remained the world’s largest methane gas producer, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Burgum is Bullish on Carbon Capture Bullsh*t
As governor of North Dakota, Burgum has been a vocal supporter of the controversial Summit Carbon Capture Pipeline, which would transport carbon captured from ethanol production facilities across state lines and sequester it underground in North Dakota. As Molly Taft brilliantly documented in “Unrest in Carbon Country,” opposition to Summit’s carbon pipeline and the use of eminent domain to seize land for it has united people across parties and walks of life in the rural Midwest.
Burgum’s support for the massive carbon pipeline project is unsurprising when you consider that Harold Hamm’s Continental Resources is one of the project’s main investors. But more broadly, Burgum’s support for carbon capture should not be understood as an admission of the need to mitigate climate change, but rather as an extension of a shrewd maneuver from the oil and gas industry to secure federal climate funding for a technology that helps them extract more oil and gas.
Capturing the carbon created as a byproduct of industrial processes in order to pump it back underground and recover more oil and gas from a well—also known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR)—has become increasingly important to the fossil fuel industry as oil reserves and the productivity of existing wells diminish. As the great Amy Westervelt explained last week:
“The carbon capture and storage (CCS) boom is neither a greenwashing campaign nor a genuine attempt to tackle carbon emissions, it has been driven almost entirely by the industry’s increasing reliance on EOR to deal with oil fields in decline. Compressed carbon turns out to be the best way to get dwindling oil reserves out of the ground, but it’s also one of the more expensive methods. Solution? Re-brand the process as a climate solution and get taxpayers to fund it. That is what the 45Q tax credit, passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, is all about.”
And that is definitely what carbon capture is about for the oil industry in North Dakota. The state’s primary drilling region, the Bakken formation, contains a massive amount of hard-to-get oil. The Bakken has a low “recovery factor” of less than 10 percent of oil in place being extracted. The fracking boom in the Bakken basin, which made Harold Hamm’s Continental Resources a fortune, unlocked more productivity for oil extraction. But enhanced oil recovery could potentially extend production further, prolonging the polluting lifespan of fossil fuel extraction even as major producers in the Bakken can foresee the time when production dwindles.
As Molly Taft reported for Drilled, “In April, North Dakota’s top oil and gas regulator warned that without importing CO2 from outside states, production in the Bakken could go into ‘terminal decline.’ Governor Burgum…called enhanced oil recovery carbon capture’s ‘biggest prize.’”
Earlier this year, Reutersreported that while Summit Carbon Solutions “has repeatedly pledged its project will not be used by drillers to boost output from oil fields,” its message to prospective clients from North Dakota’s oil industry is decidedly different: “if you want to use our project for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), where gas is pumped into oil fields to increase production, just write a check.”
Burgum’s support for carbon capture is among the factors that led some to view him as a less extreme pick than climate change deniers Chris Wright and Lee Zeldin, who Trump has tapped to head the Energy Department and the EPA. When he ran for president in 2023, USA Todayreported that “Burgum believes human activity has caused climate change, and as governor he made it a goal to get the Roughrider State carbon-neutral by 2030. But he rejects the Democratic worldview of using regulation to curtail fossil fuel use and instead emphasizes innovative technology to capture carbon emissions.” After Burgum was tapped by Trump for Interior, Politicodeemed Burgum to be “maybe the best hope for policymakers who favor an ‘abundance agenda.’”
Burgum’s selection has indeed gathered praise from pro-development voices on the center and right, including Alec Stapp of Institute for Progress, who called Burgum a “YIMBY abundance guy.” Joe Pitts of American Enterprise Institute called his selection “really, really good news.” Matt Yglesias called him “a totally solid pick who’ll do good things.” In what a telling glimpse into what the abundance agenda may be gunning for—cheap energy for AI data centers—Thomas Hochman of the Foundation for American Innovation tweeted that Burgum would help the U.S. “win the AI arms race.” Christopher Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition tweeted that he was “excited to see how [Burgum] drains the permitting swamp over the next 4 years.”
Backing false climate solutions is hardly less corrosive than outright climate denial when it comes to the goal of mitigating climate change. It just makes Burgum a more slippery villain. His gubernatorial track record gives us a sense of what we might expect from him at Interior. As governor, Burgum opposed a federal rule requiring gas companies to cut down on methane leaks when drilling on federal and tribal lands, while his state sued the Biden administration’s Interior Department for establishing conservation as a valid use of federal lands. Burgum opposed a federal rule reducing mercury emissions from coal plants that cause cancer, heart attacks, and developmental delays in children, while exempting the coal industry from $100 million in taxes over five years. Burgum applauded federal funding going to corporations pushing false climate solutions like carbon capture from coal production and gas-powered hydrogen production, but wants to repeal federal subsidies for consumers purchasing electric vehicles.
Unfortunately for the climate left, there will be little solace in “I told you so” when Burgum reveals himself to be just as irredeemably oily as the rest of Trump’s pollution promoters.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular