I'll be NBCC'ing you

Racism allegations mar Senate hearing on clean energy economy 33

Posted 2:09 PM on 16 Jul 2009
by Kate Sheppard
- More from this author
- Author Feed
Posted in
- Politics,
- Climate & Energy,
- Muckraker
Read More About
- Barbara Boxer,
- cap-and-trade,
- climate bill,
- Congress,
- green jobs,
- Senate,
- Waxman-Markey bill

Share
- del.icio.us
- digg
- Facebook
- Reddit
- MySpace
- Buzz Up!
- Twitter
- Newsvine
- Google Bookmarks
- StumbleUpon
Comment

Thursday’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on climate change blew up into an argument over race between Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the chairman of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.

NBCC’s Harry Alford was invited to speak at the hearing titled, “Ensuring and Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness while Moving toward a Clean Energy Economy.” He appeared to have been invited by the panel’s Republican members, as he was the lone voice speaking against the climate bill that passed in the House last month. In his opening statement, he claimed to be representing the “black community.”

Alford made his opposition to the bill very clear, citing a study his group recently released that predicts the bill would cause a $350 billion decline in GDP and the loss of 2.5 million jobs—which, by the way, doesn’t gibe with figures put together by the Congressional Budget Office or the Environmental Protection Agency. He also said the bill would be especially harsh on small and minority-owned businesses.

But when Boxer submitted for the record that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) this week approved a resolution stating that the group supports climate change policy, Alford became livid. He said:

All that’s condescending, and I don’t like it. It’s racial. I don’t like it. I take — I take offense to it. As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that. You’re quoting some other black man — why don’t you quote some other Asian or some — I mean, you’re being racial here. And I think you’re getting on a path here that’s going to explode, in the post ...

We’ve been looking at energy policy since 1996. And we are referring to the experts, regardless of their color. And for someone to tell me — an African-American, college-educated veteran of the United States Army — that I must contend with some other black group and put aside everything else in here. This has nothing to do with the NAACP, and really has nothing to do with the National Black Chamber of Commerce! We’re talking about energy. And that — that road the chair went down, I think is God awful.

So, Alford would like to be the voice of all African Americans on climate change policy, but bristles at the suggestion that other black groups are in fact in support of action on climate change.

Alford conceded that addressing climate change “should be a no-brainer,” but he called for an energy plan that expands the use of oil, gas, and coal. Befuddling? Perhaps not, when you note that Alford’s group has received $350,000 from ExxonMobil since 2003 and Alford has a history of offering up climate skeptic talking points.

Exxon’s most recent disclosure form shows it donated $75,000 to the group in 2008 [PDF]. The group has received at least $40,000 from the charitable arm of Exxon each year for the past six years. As the Guardian recently reported, Exxon also continues to fund climate-change deniers despite the company’s pledge last year to stop funding any group “whose position on climate change could divert attention” from the need for clean energy.

Wondering who belongs to the NBCC? Well, so is everyone else. The group refuses to disclose the names of its members to “protect their privacy.” The group is a 501(c)3 non-profit but it does not disclose its funders on its website.

Below is the video of Alford’s exchange with Boxer, via Wonk Room. See also Isaiah J. Poole’s recap over at Campaign for America’s Future.

Comments

Kate Sheppard is Grist’s political reporter.

Username Posted 4:15 pm
16 Jul 2009
Good article, thanks for posting it up.
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 10:05 pm
16 Jul 2009
Right, if he claimed to be speaking for the African American community then Boxer was 100% in the clear. It was a VERY legit position for Boxer. Amazing.
Permalink
Quinn94 Posted 6:39 am
17 Jul 2009
Of course I don't expect Grist to pick up on the racist undertones of what she said. But as an African-American, I was pretty offended at Boxer. This isn't surprising though. Sure, she may be great for the environment for some liberals. But personally, she's not a very nice woman. Alford was not proclaiming to speak on behalf of all blacks - but Boxer was trying to invalidate the legitimacy of his statements/NBCC study by picking out some resolution by the NAACP. For whites, the NAACP is assumed to be the voice of ALL blacks in America. So that some other black group disagrees with the NAACP is just shocking to Boxer. But whatever. Lets all focus on what Alford said and ignore the bigger problem...that Boxer used racism to undermine what he was testifying on. We can disagree with the conclusions that his study reached. But to do it by pitting him against "granddaddy" NAACP is just a low blow.
Permalink
1. Christopher S. Johnson Posted 10:11 am
  17 Jul 2009
  No. Quinn94. Stop. Now. Your logic defies reason and I question even your integrity in writing it. Do you think this forum is populated by idiots like over at the YouTube site for this movie above?You are in great error and there are three possibilities why:1.) You are ignorant of the facts: Alford was there to represent African American interest in the economy. He said so. Its in the frickin video above. His organization is the National Black Chamber of Commerce, for crying out loud. Boxer's counter examples where EXACTLY relevant. They are the very definition of relevancy. What in God's name are you talking about?2.) You are sincere but didnt think it through very well and posted just on an emotional level, based on passed experiences. You didnt deconstruct your own logic before writing. In that case Im just embarrassed for you but not angry.3.) You are a troll for either dirty energy companies or a Libertarian organization.Which is it? By the way, Liberals are the first to look at their own language and self examine for hidden racism. In this case, there was none.Alford is a paid off clown.
  Permalink
2. jb943 Posted 11:42 am
  17 Jul 2009
  I agree with Quinn94. It seems the matter in question was the impact of climate change policy on black americans. The focus should be on the facts in question and the studies done to come up with them -- not to pit one organization against another based on race alone, which is what Boxer did. Boxer said she wanted to put on record that there is a "diversity of opinions." Well, it goes without saying that there is a diversity of opinions, but it's not really opinions that we are interested in. While I agree with Boxer on climate change, I think Boxer was definitely off-base here when it comes to race. Rather, she should have quoted another study, or logically questioned the study Alford was representing, but to quote a resolution -- not even a study -- of another organization based on race is wrong, and a logical fallacy. To use an analogy, I'd be pissed too if my position on the impact of climate change on say, women, was undermined by a politician quoting the opinion of someone like Ann Coulter simply because she's a woman. It's just irrelevant.
  Permalink
  1. Christopher S. Johnson Posted 1:35 pm
    17 Jul 2009
    JB943 said " she should have quoted another study, or logically questioned the study Alford was representing, but to quote a resolution -- not even a study -- of another organization based on race is wrong, and a logical fallacy."I cant speak to the depth of knowledge of the NAACP statement. One would assume that they have knowledge of how green jobs will impact the African American community (through government stats, ACORN, and other community groups). Maybe there did need to be an equivalent study.
    
    But the intent to gather other evidence from people "in the know" in that community is not a logical fallacy at all. Its the opposite.The man was there about impacts on African Americans. And if he was misrepresenting that case (which is likely) then where and when else would one gather info that contests his tainted point of view?
    
    I'm at a loss here.Where is the logic? Anne Coulter? That's a poor analogy. The analogy would be if a conservative Senator brought in a statement from a thoughtful and long standing conservative women's organization saying that the repeal of Roe v. Wade would not have a significant impact on their lives, just after NOW gave their testimony.Completely 100% relevant.
    Permalink
Quinn94 Posted 10:14 am
17 Jul 2009
I work on the Hill. I was at that hearing. I stand by all that I said. Thanks for your reply though!
Permalink
1. Christopher S. Johnson Posted 10:23 am
  17 Jul 2009
  Um, I watched it on TV. His presence was meant to communicate the message: "this bill will have a negative effect upon black owned businesses, and therefore, the black community". It was explicit.Apparently your being there had nothing to do with your clarity on the dynamic being played.Hey, can I quote Van Jones now? Hmm? Do I have permission? Is it relevant? Will you call me a racist?All of this is moot anyway. Alford's testimony is now tainted and wont make a difference in the bill.
  Permalink
Quinn94 Posted 10:34 am
17 Jul 2009
Christopher S. Johnson, looking back at your past comments on other stories here on Grist it seems like you have a bit of a mean streak in your comments to people. I'm not sure why you think I would call you a racist...or why you're trying to make this so personal. I understand that you have a different viewpoint on this issue, but telling me that I'm "ignorant of the facts," calling me a "troll" and assuming that I lack the logic necessary to properly evaluate what happened during that hearing is, frankly, mean. You could have expressed your position in a different manner (which I would have greatly welcomed, by the way)...you didn't have to try to rip me to shreds. I'm not going to exchange comments on this article anymore since I have said all that I wanted to say. I will be sure to steer clear of any comments you make in the future since I don't like the tactics and tone you use to engage in discussion.
Permalink
1. Christopher S. Johnson Posted 10:55 am
  17 Jul 2009
  Quinn,
  
  I'm a super nice guy. I'm actually famous for being "the nice guy" and am even faulted for it sometimes. But when a poster comes on to a site for the sole purpose of derailing regulation of CO2, you are going to hear from me.1.) you accused ALL of Grist, including the reporter, Kate Sheppard, as not being sensitive to racial issues (thats why its personal)2.) you accused our primary political ally in the Senate as using racist tactics.3.) you are indirectly attempting to cast the climate bill as racist.4.) you are lying about the role Alford was there to play.Its not "mean" to call foul when you walk in here and start slinging mud at the exact moment a critical law is about to be put into place. Quinn, you haven't even begun to start hearing the nice guys speak up and tell you how it is.
  
  My parents marched with King in DC and I have spent my time working on documentaries about hate groups, white supremacist, and human rights. I know what racism is.
  Permalink
  1. Ashley Braun Posted 12:23 pm
    17 Jul 2009
    All right, people, please keep in mind the following rules for commenting here at Grist which you've all agreed to:Don't be a jerk. Nobody likes jerks. Do not direct personal attacks at a poster or fellow commenter. Substance, people. Substance. Let's keep out all accusations of being "liars" and "racists" out of the comments. Ad hominem attacks ain't gonna do anything about climate change, so cut it out and discuss the real issues at hand.
    Thanks and happy commenting!P.S. Seriously, we're watching. And we reserve the right to delete offensive comments, etc.
    Permalink
kathulah Posted 10:55 am
17 Jul 2009
http://www2.guidestar.org/ReportNonProfit.aspx?ein=35-1889294&Mode=NonGx&lid=600445&dl=True
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 12:02 pm
17 Jul 2009
The longer version of the video reveals the folly of Alford (and the false testimony of Quinn94 above) to a further degree. Alford clearly wanted to have it both ways. He was clearly trying to represent African Americans and wanted to shut out any opposing viewpoint from African American groups who are not funded by Exxon-Mobil. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59kAsbK9rc0Quinn94 was not posting here as an individual with hurt feelings. Quinn94 is a saboteur, attempting to gain sympathy from Liberal guilt about *real* racism and divide support for the bill.
Permalink
1. Quinn94 Posted 12:07 pm
  17 Jul 2009
  I don't agree with the findings of his study. I'm just saying I don't agree with the tactics Boxer used to show her disdain for the study Alford was presenting. Seeing as I have been involved in crafting the global warming bill, that I am trying to divide support for the bill is simply not true. I am looking forward to this bill passing. I just don't think what Boxer did was right in this particular situation.
  Permalink
  1. Christopher S. Johnson Posted 12:26 pm
    17 Jul 2009
    If that is true, then I withdraw the accusation that you were being wrong by design (as a saboteur) and merely find a chasm of disagreement with your sense of fairness and understanding of what transpired. The man claimed to be representing black citizens of the U.S., including WORKERS, not just business owners. I think putting the NAACP, or Van Jones, or the Unions, next to him for comparison is the definition of fairness.Alford was purposefully insincere when he said his testimony was not about race, but "about energy".Its all a trick. Theatrics.
    Permalink
Quinn94 Posted 12:31 pm
17 Jul 2009
See? Was that so hard. :) Now lets all have some PINKBERRY to celebrate that Friday is here.
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 1:47 pm
17 Jul 2009
Ashley Braun, The term "liar' and "lie" may be interpreted as personal insult or flame, but I mean it its purest dictionary form. I mean it as literal. It is a legitimate word with value and meaning. To say "Alford was not proclaiming to speak on behalf of all blacks" was lie and completely misrepresents the entire event. Additionally, I was defending both the logic and good name of your reporter, who was being attacked. From the dictionary: Lie an intentionally false statement : David felt a pang of shame at telling Alice a lie | the whole thing is a pack of lies. • used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression : all their married life she had been living a lie.
Permalink
Quinn94 Posted 1:57 pm
17 Jul 2009
The first portion of Alford's opening statement:Madam Chairwoman, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee. On behalf of the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC), thank you for the opportunity to address you today.
I come to you, not as an economist, but with a deep understanding of small and minority-owned businesses and as someone who has experience with consumer behavior.
Climate change is a vital issue that must be addressed. It will take time and cost real money to mitigate humanity's influence on our climate. The thing that concerns me and many of the 95,000 business members of the National Black Chamber is that any legislation Congress enacts must consider the impact that costs will have on small and minority-owned businesses, their ability to create jobs and the impact on the communities that they serve. I'm sorry, but where in that does he say that he is speaking on behalf of the entire Black community?
Permalink
1. Christopher S. Johnson Posted 2:14 pm
  17 Jul 2009
  Is this being facetious?I think I'll take a break. I'm not in the mood for "Alice in Wonderland" tea parties.
  Permalink
2. Christopher S. Johnson Posted 4:47 pm
  17 Jul 2009
  By the way, since you mentioned it, in what capacity, and for which interest, are you "involved in crafting the global warming bill"?
  Permalink
3. dygituljunky Posted 6:56 pm
  17 Jul 2009
  QUINN94 asked: "I'm sorry, but where in that does he say that he is speaking on behalf of the entire Black community?" HERE: "I come to you, not as an economist, but with a deep understanding of small and minority-owned businesses and as someone who has experience
  with consumer behavior." (emphasis added) HERE: "The thing that concerns me and many of the 95,000 business members of
  the National Black Chamber is that any legislation Congress enacts must
  consider the impact that costs will have on small and minority-owned
  businesses, their ability to create jobs and the impact on the
  communities that they serve." (emphasis added) and at the end of the video above when he says, "The benefits do not meet the costs... especially for urban communities and let me speak for the African-American community since I am African-American." Mr. Alford was clearly trying to create the impression that he represent of all minority business owners and "the communities that they serve."
  Permalink
  1. Catmoves Posted 9:10 am
    21 Jul 2009
    "HERE: "I come to you, not as an economist, but with a deep understanding of small and minority-owned businesses and as someone who has experience with consumer behavior." (emphasis added) "HERE: "The thing that concerns me and many of the 95,000 business members of the National Black Chamber is that any legislation Congress enacts must consider the impact that costs will have on small and minority-owned businesses, their ability to create jobs and the impact on the communities that they serve." (emphasis added)"These quotes do NOT indicate anyone purporting to be speaking for an entire community.However, ""The benefits do not meet the costs... especially for urban communities and let me speak for the African-American community since I am African-American." seems to fill your bill perfectly.It seems that part of your thinking has lead you into a trap whereby you can find racism in anything that someone you apparently don't care for writes or says. Chill out, chum.
    Permalink
George Foreman Posted 2:19 pm
17 Jul 2009
This argument has been used often and should always be considered seriously, but it is always to be noted that abusive accusations have been made in the past as well.
Permalink
penguin Posted 8:36 pm
17 Jul 2009
OK he may have meant to give the impression that he was speaking for the black community, as politicians generally lead you to believe that they are speaking for the larger whole, even when it is not true, and maybe there are some black/minority groups that share his opinion so I understand the rebuttal of the quote from the NAACP- this obviously was done in the heat of the moment and in an attempt to invalidate Mr. Alfords message. However since whan does anyone give credence to someones claim to speak on behalf of an entire community or race? I guarantee that Mr. Alfords comments were to show that he did have some backing from "some" members of the community which he was using to state his poliltical claim, but not to pretend that he spoke for each and every black/minority in the nation . Boxers esponse while im sure did not come from "shock that one black group would disagree with another" was irresponsible and not well thought out, especially for a politician. while i don't believe she is blatantly racist, it was an insensitive and childish trivialization of the issue being discussed.
Permalink
1. Christopher S. Johnson Posted 9:18 pm
  17 Jul 2009
  I'm intrigued, Penguin, how was it irresponsible? Lets say I want to find out if the climate bill will have a negative effect on the African American community. Which of these groups would you consider an irresponsible witness to call or quote or refute another?• The NBCC and their study, funded in part by Exxon-Mobil• NAACP• Van Jones• ACORN• Whatever mayors organizations that exist• The U.S. government sectors who watch unemployment and trendsWhich?Mr. Alford , and the the Republican's who invited him as a contrarian for the hearings, made the topic about racial impacts, not Boxer.You want a racial impact? How about category 5 hurricanes? There is a racial impact for you, Mr. Alford.I think the problem with me is that I don't care how it "looks", I care about the core morality of what is transpiring. For blacks, for gays, and for the environment. Thats why I didn't go into state diplomacy as a career. Its not my job to be a diplomat around this.The calls of "racist undertones" and "this is racial" are petty and laughable in the face of what this topic is all about: Global ecological and atmospheric changes that put our current society at risk.
  
  Mr. Alford is a bought off tool. And the complaints against Boxer go into the "diversion" bin.
  Permalink
  1. penguin Posted 10:57 pm
    17 Jul 2009
    Irresponsible in that her response was to attempt to negate the opinion of one man who claimed to be speaking with a certain groups interest in mind with that of a group who serves the interests of that same group but has a different opinion, instead of refuting his claims with facts of environmental experts, she wrongly simplified his stance as being based on race instead of consequences. Had she been a better politician and diplomat, because as annoying as it is-yes they do need to worry about how it looks, she could have much more elegantly debunked the bought off tool's ill advised concerns, thereby avoiding the focus on the petty discussion of racial undertones and shining light on the important (urgent to all of human kind if only we would pull our heads out of the asphyxiation induced "every thing is okay trance" many seem to be in due to the toxins permeating our bodies and brains)issue of the environment, and she would be the hero, for not being baited into childish politics, but being a leader in progression and awareness. Time machine anyone?
    Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 8:57 pm
17 Jul 2009
So Exxon Mobile's charitable arm 'donated' $75,000 to the NBCC last year and much more. For what -- to do the 'good works' of dissing global warming -- which protects Exxon's bottom line.
Exxon gets to deduct this as a 'charity'. Pretty good, when doing good means you are the chief beneficiary. And the U.S. taxpayer gets to subsidize this nonsense.
Of course, this is a drop in the bucket compared to Exxon's overall contribution to global disinformation.
Permalink
Royal Enfield Posted 10:17 pm
17 Jul 2009
questions, comments? write (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

//
var l=new Array();

var output = '';

l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[29]='\"';l[30]=' 109';l[31]=' 111';l[32]=' 99';l[33]=' 46';l[34]=' 116';l[35]=' 117';l[36]=' 111';l[37]=' 108';l[38]=' 108';l[39]=' 101';l[40]=' 115';l[41]=' 64';l[42]=' 100';l[43]=' 114';l[44]=' 111';l[45]=' 102';l[46]=' 108';l[47]=' 97';l[48]=' 95';l[49]=' 121';l[50]=' 114';l[51]=' 114';l[52]=' 97';l[53]=' 104';l[54]=':';l[55]='o';l[56]='t';l[57]='l';l[58]='i';l[59]='a';l[60]='m';l[61]='\"';l[62]='=';l[63]='f';l[64]='e';l[65]='r';l[66]='h';l[67]='a ';l[68]='
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:07 pm
18 Jul 2009
Alford actually is black.If he speaks, then he represents a black person.Can it get any clearer?
Permalink
Tyler Durden Posted 10:06 pm
19 Jul 2009
If someone says he's speaking for the African-American community ("let me speak for the African-American community since I am African-American"), then it's perfectly legitimate for someone else to counter that the NAACP, which BTW is the largest political African-American group in the country, has a contrary position. This is clearly not racist, and I don't see what the big deal is.Alford was obviously playing the race card, which I've seen before. In Berkeley, California I've seen a guy who is the head of a purported group called the Small Property Owners Association (I don't know whether the group has any members aside from this one guy) lobby against rent control. The guy is African-American and accuses anyone who supports rent control of being racist. Few if any take him seriously, and that should be the same reaction to Alford.
Permalink
kandimba Posted 8:52 am
21 Jul 2009
This is amazing. American politics at its worse. She wasn't being racist, of course, she was just showing how communities of color will be particularly affected by climate change.http://cooltheearth.wordpress.com/
Permalink
jipjop Posted 12:48 pm
21 Jul 2009
If you have been white all your life, how do you know when race is a factor and when it isn't? What is your point of reference?
Permalink
obsesor Posted 8:14 am
23 Jul 2009
Why is he so mad? Alford comes off very agressive, why?
Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor! Why not register?

Viewed

Commented

Racism allegations mar Senate hearing on clean energy economy 33

Posted 2:09 PM on 16 Jul 2009
by Kate Sheppard

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Add a Comment

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

Racism allegations mar Senate hearing on clean energy economy 33

Posted 2:09 PM on 16 Jul 2009 by Kate Sheppard

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Comments View as Flat

Add a Comment

Posts With the Mosts

Recent Comments by ...

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

Posted 2:09 PM on 16 Jul 2009
by Kate Sheppard