Coal companies and the nation's biggest railroad association accounted for 50 percent of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity's (ACCCE) $47 million budget in 2008, according to ACCCE's tax return, E&E News reported on Wednesday. Yowza!

Arch Coal, Peabody, and Consol each put in $5 million; Foundation Coal put in just $3 million. Meanwhile, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) put in $6 million. AAR represents major railroads including Union Pacific, BNSF, CSX, and Norfolk Southern, which get substantial portions of their revenues from hauling coal. 

ACCCE opposed the Waxman-Markey climate bill, and recently Duke Energy left the group because of its entrenched opposition to meaningful climate legislation.

I recently looked closely at the ACCCE board of directors, many of which are named in the E&E story along with their contributions to the group. It is interesting to note how many board members ACCCE shares with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, especially in the coal and rail sectors. And of course, I've discussed U.S. Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue's connections with Union Pacific before. And we noticed that U.S. Chamber Executive Committee member and immediate past Chairman of the Board of the U.S. Chamber (i.e., Donohue's boss last year) is Donald J. Shepard, who sits on the board of directors of CSX.

E&E also reported on the American Petroleum Institute's (API) tax return, noting that the group spent about $75 million on public relations and advertising in 2008. API has been a vocal opponent of climate legislation for a long time, including repeated investments in misinformation and Astroturf campaigns. This past summer, API bankrolled the faux group "Energy Citizens" which organized a number of anti-climate legislation public events around the country.

It's a lot of money to spend for the right to keep the U.S. stuck with dirty energy sources that are warming the planet and melting the glaciers. Speaking of melting glaciers, check out this remarkably prescient ad from Humble Oil, which formed several building blocks of what eventually became known as ExxonMobil.

Talk about truth in advertising.

Why should you buy their product? Because each day, they produce enough oil to melt 7 tons of glacier! Ok, it is from 1962, so its not like global warming was front-page news. On the other hand, it was just two years before President Lyndon B. Johnson noted: "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through ... a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels" in a special message to Congress.)

This post originally appeared on Pete's Switchboard blog.

Related Links:

Greens have finally got the Big Mo

Corporations call off the old green battle, but Chamber of Commerce soldiers on [UPDATED]

Is Chamber of Commerce prez biased on climate because of his ties to Union Pacific railroad?

Paul Krugman had a post the other day on the "aura of inevitability" and how it finally seems to be working for progressives instead of against them. I think he's on to something.

Summer was brutal for greens. "Cap and tax" attacks were bouncing around the Foxosphere. House Dems were getting killed back home for voting yes on Waxman-Markey. Conventional wisdom said that Pelosi had blundered by forcing them into an unpopular vote for a bill that could never pass the Senate, where health care reform was imperiled and clean energy legislation a forlorn dream.

Since then, however, greens have had one good break after another. And this isn't like 2006, when Al Gore's movie came out and for a while every magazine published a green issue. Those were pop culture events. These latest dramas have taken place inside the hothouse of the Beltway political world, where legislators and political operators take notice.

Good enemies

Start with the dirty energy Keystone Kops, shooting themselves in the foot.

First there was Big Coal's PR arm, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, formerly seen as a lobbying juggernaut that succeeded in putting all of DC in its thrall. Then came the astroturf fraud in August, as Bonner & Assoc. -- working for the coal industry -- got busted sending fake letters from civil rights and women's groups to legislators. ACCCE dropped Bonner like a hot potato, and Bonner blamed ... a temp. Rachel Maddow ripped them a new one. (This story isn't gone, either; a House hearing at which Bonner will testify was recently postponed and will happen later this month. Expect more embarrassing headlines). To boot, ACCCE saw high-profile defections from Duke Energy and Alcoa.

Then there was Faces of Coal, a new astroturf group whose faces turned out to be ... iStockphoto clip art. That one got ripped by Maddow and Stewart.

Then there's the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has bumbled its way into ignominy in record time. First companies began leaving it over its intransigence on clean energy legislation. Then it demanded a "21st Century Scopes Monkey Trial on the science of climate change." Then more companies left. Chamber chief Tom Donahue, oblivious to the changing political winds, bumbled around, at first defiant, then incoherent, then confused, then defensive. Then it emerged that the CoC's membership numbers were wildly inflated -- not 3 million business, but more like 200,000. Then the Yes Men came along and ganked them so successfully with a fake press release and press conference that Reuters got punked, making national headlines and completely eclipsing the launch of the Chamber's goofy PR campaign. Maddow ripped that one too. Then the White House joined in and started pummeling the Chamber, which has spent almost $35 million just in the third quarter of this year lobbying against Obama's initiatives. The Chamber is now in complete disarray, having become, almost overnight, a national symbol of yesterday's news: old, out of touch ideologues in hock to old, out of touch industries.

And finally there are the authors of Superfreakonomics, whose best-seller muddling the science of climate change and advocating for hail-mary policies like geoengineering seems mainly to have served to rouse the progressive intelligentsia to climate science's defense, and to a greater awareness and engagement on the climate issue. I haven't seen this many posts about climate change and climate policy in the progressive mediasphere in ... ever.

Good friends

Meanwhile, there are more and more Faces of Clean Energy, and they ain't clip art.

A huge group of businesses lobbied for legislation on the hill recently. A coalition of religious groups called Day Six is now lobbying for legislation. Operation Free, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, is on a Vets for American Power bus tour -- "mission: secure American with clean energy" -- lobbying for legislation. (For supporting "cap and tax type policies," Penn. State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe [R, needless to say] called these vets "traitors" and "Benedict Arnolds." Again: you really couldn't ask for enemies this clueless.) A group of 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations just sent a letter [PDF] to the Senate reaffirming, in blunt terms, the scientific consensus on the nature and urgency of climate change.

This Saturday will mark Climate Action Day, with hundreds of events across the nation and the world. A string of recent polls has shown that Americans of all political stripes, including those in conservative Dem districts and especially young Americans [PDF], want clean energy, support Obama on the issue, and want legislation from this Congress. They aren't falling for the "cap and tax" hysteria.

Remember the Senate clean energy bill that could never pass because it couldn't get bipartisan support? It has bipartisan support now, and Lindsey Graham coming aboard has pushed Murkowski, Byrd, and Voinovich into the maybe column. The road to 60 votes, while far from easy, is clearly visible now.

And that's before the administration has fully engaged. Obama will give a speech at MIT on Friday supporting the legislation. The same day, Lisa Jackson will release the EPA's analysis of the bill. Next week, the Environment and Public Works Committee will begin hearings, and among the first witnesses will be Jackson, DOE's Steven Chu, the Interior's Ken Salazar, Transportation's Ray LaHood, and FERC chair Jon Wellinghoff. This kicks off what's expected to be a full court press from the administration to get the bill done.

---

In short, at least for the moment, greens have the Big Mo. There's a self-reinforcing cycle of positive stories happening. Deniers and delayers are on the defensive.

It feels good! Yes, it's certain to change, and change again, over the course of the long fight in the Senate. But confidence is everything. Greens aren't used to being the ones with muscle and momentum, but now that they've got them the thing to do is get a little swagger. Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing is more powerful in politics than the aura of inevitability.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

SuperFreak Dubner embraces ClimateGate conspiracy theories

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Update: This story keeps growing. Since last week...

Original story:

More trouble this week for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 97-year-old business advocacy group that has been courting controversy by questioning climate change and trying to weaken a clean energy bill.

California’s second-largest utility, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., announced it was quitting the Chamber on Tuesday, citing “fundamental differences” over climate change. PG&E is a member of USCAP, a coalition of corporations and environmental groups calling for a comprehensive climate plan. The utility is also a leader in solar energy; this spring, it announced a 500 MW solar-voltaic initiative.

Nike and Johnson & Johnson, while retaining membership in the Chamber, have also let it be known that they're unhappy with the organization's climate position. The old battle line between business and environmentalists is blurring, but the Chamber is still fighting the old war.

PG&E CEO Peter Darbee explained the company's decision to leave the organization:

He’s referring to the Chamber’s recent call for a “21st Century Scopes Monkey Trial” to force the EPA to defend in court its finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health. As David Roberts detailed earlier this month, the monkey-trial fiasco is just one in a string of clumsy steps by the Chamber.

The Chamber can commiserate with another fossil-fuel-friendly group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), which saw prominent members Duke Energy and Alstom Power quit this month. The loss capped an embarrassing summer in which it was revealed that ACCCE had contracted with an Astroturf firm that sent forged letters to Congress, purporting to be from minority and senior-citizen groups opposed to climate legislation. Congress is now investigating the fraudulent letters.

So here’s a question for climate activists: Why not hound companies in the Chamber and ACCCE, demanding to know why they lend their money and their legitimacy to such groups? Companies may decide that membership is a weight around their necks they don’t need.

The Chamber, by the way, doesn’t release names of its members. You’ll have to find out from companies themselves whether they belong.

I’m no activist, but I tried this out two weeks ago when I met Microsoft’s chief environmental strategist, Rob Bernard. Microsoft has never been considered an environmental leader, but it’s got a decent climate policy on paper. It opened an energy-efficient data center this summer that could lead to significant energy savings, particularly if the company finds ways to use the innovations in larger server labs.

Given all this, why is Microsoft a Chamber member? Bernard told me Microsoft takes climate change very seriously and tried to distance the company from the Chamber's climate shenanigans. "The views expressed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce do not reflect Microsoft’s position on climate change and we are not participating in their climate initiatives," he said in a followup email.

It’s not much of an answer. But if people keep asking, that answer might change.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Why is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on such a different page from its major members when it comes to climate change legislation?

Last spring we raised the question of who the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is really representing when it comes to the issue of climate change. It seemed curious that although 19 of the companies on the Chamber's board were on-record supporting climate legislation while only four (including three coal companies) were against it, the U.S. Chamber staff continued to take a hard-line position on the issue. And as I've previously discussed, the U.S. Chamber announced in June 2009 that it would spend $100 million fighting proposals it opposes, including on climate policy.  

Now, a new question has arisen, prompted by this 2006 item about the 25th anniversary of a railroad line built by Union Pacific railroad to carry coal from southern Wyoming to the rest of the U.S.

What is the connection between Union Pacific Railroad, dirty coal and the U.S. Chamber? The dots connecting them draw what has the appearance of a conflict of interest between Tom Donohue's role as President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and his role as an 11-year member of the Union Pacific Railroad's Board of Directors.

Starting with Mr. Donohue: U.S. Chamber President Tom Donohue has been on the board of directors at Union Pacific since 1998. As a Union Pacific board member, Donohue has been well cared for.

In addition, Union Pacific has been good to the U.S. Chamber:

Ok, but it is common for people in Donohue's position to be on various boards and such. So what? Well, I don't know what the U.S. Chamber's policy on conflict of interest says, but if it doesn't cover this situation, it needs fixing.

Union Pacific has a vested interest in making sure it can continue to haul lots of coal.

In Union Pacific's own words,

"We may be affected by climate change and market or regulatory responses to climate change...restrictions, caps, taxes, or other controls on emissions of greenhouse gasses, including diesel exhaust, could significantly increase our operating costs ...[and] could also affect our customers ... [which could] reduce the amount of traffic we handle and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity." 

Clearly, Union Pacific is worried about what climate legislation would do to its business, and decided to oppose the climate bill that the U.S. House passed in June.

It's easy to understand Union Pacific's interest in maintaining its lucrative coal traffic. Union Pacific and BNSF, another giant railroad (and ACCCE member!) have invested hundreds of millions over the last 25 years in a joint rail line capable of moving the coal.

It's a big deal to these companies -- they even issued a press release celebrating the 200,000th rail car of coal being shipped out of the Basin, an event memorialized in this group picture - which happens to show that the coal being shipped in the 200,000th train came from a coal mine owned by Peabody Energy (another ACCCE member! and one of the four U.S. Chamber board members that opposes climate policy.)

(Arch Coal and Western Fuels Association -- both ACCCE members! -- didn't make the picture I guess, even though they also have coal mines in the same region and rely on Union Pacific to move their coal.  In fact, every one of Arch Coal's western mines rely on Union Pacific trains.)

So to review...The President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who is resisting calls from his own board members to stop fighting against federal climate policy, is being richly compensated by Union Pacific, a company which -- along with some of its key businesses partners -- is vigorously fighting against federal climate policy.

This isn't actually the first time that Mr. Donohue's potential conflicts of interest have come up. In 2005, the New York Times reported on concerns about Mr. Donohue's roles on corporate boards, though at the time climate policy was not one of the issues mentioned.

So, it would seem fair for some of the companies on the Chamber board that want to move forward -- Johnson & Johnson, Nike, PNM Resources, Dow, and recent ACCCE abandoners Duke and Alcoa -- to wonder whether they are getting railroaded. And it would seem fair to ask Tom Donohue to explain how he's going to address this apparent conflict of interest.

This post originally appeared on Pete's Switchboard blog.

Related Links:

NYT: U.S. Chamber has not expressed support for any proposals to cap emissions

API and ACCCE spend the big bucks

The U.S. Chamber needs to get its story straight

Only a week after the nation's third largest utility, Duke Energy, announced it was terminating its membership in the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), citing disagreement over clean energy legislation, another company has followed suit.

Alstom Power is joining Duke for similar reasons. From the NY Times/Greenwire article:

Check out what Duke Energy said last week:

Duke has also withdrawn its membership in the National Association of Manufacturers for similar reasons; the NAM is currently running a misleading ad campaign against clean energy legislation.

Duke Energy and Alstom Power washing their hands of the coal lobby comes as welcome news.  ACCCE is trying to preserve the status quo for dirty coal, and they will do whatever it takes to keep things that way.

ACCCE doesn’t want any climate legislation and has actively been fighting the legislation using any means necessary. ACCCE contracted with Bonner & Associates, the lobbying firm that forged letters against ACES and otherwise tried to subvert the democratic process. Then ACCCE hired “Astroturf” firm Lincoln Strategies.

The defections of Duke Energy and Alstom Power are a clear sign that this front group has gone too far--even for energy companies like Duke that are heavily invested in coal and have more coal plants under construction than any other utility. 

The big question now is why is General Electric staying in the coalition? Why is General Electric continuing to sully its name by associating with a coal front group that is under investigation by Congress for corrupting our democracy?  When will they realize that the coalition is trying to kill markets for clean energy, the very markets that GE allegedly cares about? 

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

All of us who want to see the world changed for the better struggle with whether it is better to fight for that change from the inside or the outside.

But you can’t fight for change from inside an organization dedicated to stopping change, like, say, the scandal-ridden front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy.  You know that a coal-industry-funded group is beyond redemption when one of the largest coal utilities in the country abandons them (see “Breaking: Duke Energy quits coal front group over climate bill — GE and Caterpillar should do the same“).  Duke explained in a statement:

“We believe ACCCE is constrained by influential member companies who will not support passing climate change legislation in 2009 or 2010.”

Duh.

The Center for Public Integrity’s excellent staff writer Marianne Lavelle managed to get GE on record with a truly laughable defense for their refusal to join Duke (and Alcoa):

But some companies that support climate legislation remain in the ACCCE fold — the largest and most diverse being General Electric. GE spokesman Daniel Nelson said in an email that ACCCE does not reflect GE’s views on climate change legislation, which is that cap and trade would help “drive American technological innovation and competitive leadership… We advocate that view within ACCCE and have and will work to make it the majority view in that organization.”

I feel those monkeys trying to fly out of my butt again….

Seriously, GE?   Even aluminum giant Alcoa, who quit more quietly, wouldn’t offer up such nonsense:

After the Duke story broke, the blog EnviroKnow confirmed that aluminum maker Alcoa had earlier quit the group.

The aluminum maker decided to quit paying dues to the coal advocacy group about a month ago as part of its company-wide effort to reduce costs. “You may have heard of a little thing called the economic downturn,” Alcoa spokesman Kevin Lowery said in an interview with The Center for Public Integrity. So it was an economic, rather than a philosophical decision? “Any kind of economic decision has to have a business case — whether you invest money and make money at the end of the day,” Lowery said.

C’mon GE.  Do you really want to tarnish the EcoMagination brand?  Do you really want to be seen as a have-it-both ways greenwasher? It’s bad enough that one of the members of the uber-disinformer American Petroleum Institute is GE Inspection Services — with a broken link that takes us to GE Energy!

Let’s remember:

General Electric has about as much chance of getting ACCCE to change their position on the climate bill as they do of getting Sen. James Inhofe (R-OIL) to change his.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

This post was originally published on the blog of the Center for Public Integrity and is reposted on Grist with CPI’s kind permission.

With its hefty bankroll and polished messaging, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity looked like a juggernaut going into the climate change debate on Capitol Hill. But ever since the House narrowly passed a measure in late June to set the country on a path to addressing global warming -- a measure with plenty of concessions to coal but still lacking ACCCE’s support -- the advocacy group has been beset by struggles.

First, Bonner & Associates, the lobbying firm ACCCE subcontracted to help stoke its vaunted grassroots network, was found to have forged at least 13 letters to members of Congress purportedly from senior citizen and minority groups opposed to the legislation. Bonner blames a rogue employee and ACCCE has fired Bonner, but a congressional investigation continues.

The large power company Duke Energy, whose chief executive James Rogers has long advocated climate legislation, withdrew from the coal group this week -- a story first reported by Energy Daily (subscription required). ACCCE burst on the scene in 2008 with the message that it did support a practical, affordable climate plan -- essentially Duke’s position. But Duke said a rift became apparent during the debate over the House bill. “We believe ACCCE is constrained by influential member companies who will not support passing climate change legislation in 2009 or 2010,” the company said in a statement. After the Duke story broke, the blog EnviroKnow confirmed that aluminum maker Alcoa had earlier quit the group.

The aluminum maker decided to quit paying dues to the coal advocacy group about a month ago as part of its company-wide effort to reduce costs. “You may have heard of a little thing called the economic downturn,” Alcoa spokesman Kevin Lowery said in an interview with The Center for Public Integrity. So it was an economic, rather than a philosophical decision? “Any kind of economic decision has to have a business case -- whether you invest money and make money at the end of the day,” Lowery said.

Alcoa, which has reduced its own carbon emissions 36 percent since 1990 while doubling production, sees a genuine business case for cap-and-trade, since a law would increase the incentive to make vehicles and planes more lightweight and fuel efficient through use of aluminum.

The loss of companies like Alcoa and Duke (which in addition to coal power has seven no-carbon-emissions nuclear reactors and is planning three more) comes at the same time that ACCCE has added members whose fortunes are more closely tied to coal. Berwind Natural Resources, which owns and leases large coal reserves in the Appalachian Mountains; Buckeye Power, a co-op with two coal units on the Ohio River; Crounse Corporation, a Kentucky-based barge line that hauls primarily coal on the Ohio River and its tributaries; and International Coal Group, a producer in Central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, all have joined ACCCE’s membership roster since the spring.

Duke spokesman Tom Williams said in an interview with the Center that the break had nothing to do with the giant power companies that remain ACCCE members -- Southern Company, American Electric Power, or Progress Energy. Although Williams declined to name names, saying ACCCE’s steering committee was well aware of which of its members were intransigent on climate legislation, ACCCE includes many smaller rural electric co-ops completely dependent on coal who have been some of the most adamant opponents of legislation. Buckeye Power, for example, urges activism against “Cap and Tax” legislation on its web site.

But some companies that support climate legislation remain in the ACCCE fold -- the largest and most diverse being General Electric. GE spokesman Daniel Nelson said in an email that ACCCE does not reflect GE’s views on climate change legislation, which is that cap and trade would help “drive American technological innovation and competitive leadership … We advocate that view within ACCCE and have and will work to make it the majority view in that organization.”

ACCCE, for its part, released a statement [docx] that said, in part, “From time to time, individual coalition members may have different perspectives with regard to important policy positions.” With the Senate set to take up climate legislation on its return, ACCCE launched a new round of TV advertisements “emphasizing the need to keep electricity costs affordable by strengthening the use of coal in our energy mix.”

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

"This is the truest form of grass-roots there is. We don't charge people to be members of the Citizen Army, so if anything, it's more organic than what some of the environmental groups do. We allow these people to express their own opinions on these issues."

-- Joe Lucas, senior vice president for communications at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (aka Top Coal Lobby Spokesflak), defending the actions of coal lobbyists against accusations of creating fraudulent grassroots support, or "astroturfing."

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

More fake letters opposing climate legislation have come to light, with this latest batch being falsely attributed to senior-citizen organizations.

As we've reported previously, forged letters were sent to three U.S. representatives from Bonner and Associates, a Washington, D.C.-based group that specializes in astroturfing. Bonner was subcontracted by the PR firm Hawthorn Group to do work on behalf of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal-industry group that wanted to stop passage of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill in the House.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Tuesday released copies of five letters that hadn't been seen publicly before, including one we hadn't heard about previously, upping the total number of confirmed fakes to 13. Markey chairs the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Climate Change, which is leading an investigation into the scandal.

The newly discovered letter [PDF] was sent to Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) under the name of Senior Center Inc. in Charlottesville, Va.  Perriello -- who received a total of nine forged letters, including some purportedly coming from minority groups in his district -- voted for the climate bill that passed the House on June 26.

Pennsylvania Democratic Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper and Chris Carney, who voted against the bill, also received forged letters claiming to be from senior groups. Markey has released copies of all the fake letters.

The letters written under the names of senior-citizen organizations are very similar. Here's the text of one sent to Dahlkemper [PDF] claiming to be from the Slippery Rock Senior Center:

Markey's investigation into the forged letters continues. According to a press release from his committee, "Dozens of letters still remain that must be verified as genuine or false -- all told, 58 letters were sent to the three members of Congress."

"We've seen fear-mongering with our nation's senior citizens with health care, and now we're seeing fraud-mongering with senior citizens on clean energy," said Markey in a statement. "Lately, democratic debate has been deceptively debased by fake facts and harsh rhetoric. We must return to an honest discussion of the issues, and ensure that this sort of campaign does not further poison the well of trustworthy debate."

Progressive Media, a joint project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund and Media Matters Action Network, released a video on Tuesday about the forged-letter scandal:

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Courtesy Daquella manera via FlickrAstroturfing – the corporate practice of funding initiatives that mimic "grassroots" support for an issue – has been getting a lot of attention these days, after it came to light that a pro-coal group was ultimately behind forged letters to Congress on the climate bill. But the practice is neither new nor rare, and we can expect to see similar actions over the next weeks as representatives return to their home districts for August recess.

Grist reported yesterday that the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, the group whose money ultimately funded the forged letters, has planned a $1 million ad and "volunteer" blitz over the August congressional recess aimed at Senate Democrats in coal-dependent states. The group plans to organize 225,000 "volunteers" in what its calling "America’s Power Army," to attend town hall meetings, fairs and other functions attended by members of Congress. ACCCE's paid staff will work to round up volunteers, providing them with "information or T-shirts" and encouraging them to ask questions of the legislators.

The group is also leading a "road trip in search of a better climate solution" over recess, which you can follow on Twitter. The tour is stopping in the states of various fence-sitting Democrats. Via Twitter, ACCCE staffers offer such insight as, "Team Ohio love Dougs Claaaic burgers and Affordable Energy" and "Leroy, who works at a local steel company thinks affordable clean coal is the future."

ACCCE spokesman Joe Lucas maintains that "this is the purest form of grassroots .... It’s facilitating constituents to talk one-on-one with members of Congress." Except, ACCCE has the pockets of Big Coal backing it, with its members including giants like Southern Company, Peabody Energy Corp, and Arch Coal.

ACCCE officials also said that despite the forged letters fiasco (which has prompted a congressional investigation and a campaign urging the Department of Justice to investigate whether wire fraud was committed), they intend to work with Hawthorn Group on this new project. Hawthorn, if you haven't been following the play-by-play, is the ACCCE contractor that in turn subcontracted with Bonner & Associates, the group that sent the forged letters. "We're not going to throw the baby out with the bath water here," said Lucas.

ACCCE is also subcontracting astroturf work to the Lincoln Strategy Group, a firm with a not-so-great record on voter fraud, reports ThinkProgress.

This type of campaign is nothing new for ACCCE. I ran into them while covering the presidential primaries last year. Back then, ACCCE was handing out coal shirts, hats, and pens to people as they waited in line to attend candidate events, to create the appearance of widespread support for their cause. I also encountered coal-powered street teams at the Democratic and Republican national conventions last summer, where they were handing out maps, buttons, and boxes of breath mints stamped with the ACCCE logo. The group dropped somewhere between $35 million and $45 million on advertising last year, so putting in $1 million over August recess is small potatoes, really.

But coal isn't the only dirty-energy industry orchestrating fake "grassroots" activity around the country over recess. The oil and gas business is getting in on the action, via astroturf surrogates at FreedomWorks, a conservative action group backed by oil and gas industry giant Koch Industries. The groups have also been heavily involved in organizing the so-called Tea Party Protests around the country.

On Wednesday, FreedomWorks issued an "August Action Recess Packet" that will be distributed at events around the country. The packet provides talking points to bring up at events with legislators. Among them:

The packs also include invitations that people can pass along to events with their legislators. Media Matters has more on the action pack, which somehow fails to mention that many of FreedomWorks fossil-fuels backers stand to lose under the climate bill.

FreedomWorks is also chaired by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who now works for the lobbying firm DLA Piper, which has lobbied on behalf of a number of energy industry clients. Armey himself recently suggested that it is "pretentious" to believe humanity's reliance on fossil fuels might be warming the planet.

Another astroturf group trying to drum up opposition to the climate bill over recess is Americans for Prosperity. The group has been leading a "Hot Air Tour" to combat what it calls "global warming alarmism." The tour includes an actual balloon claiming that the climate bill will create "lost jobs, higher taxes, less freedom."

Americans for Prosperity is also funded largely by Koch Industries. It also received funding from ExxonMobil, back when the organizations was known as Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, before changing its name in 2003.  Tim Phillips, the group's leader, tried to deny their relationship to Exxon on the Rachel Maddow Show on Thursday, in a segment detailing how AFP and other astroturf groups are using a variety of tactics create the impression that most Americans are opposed to action on health care and energy.

Not to be forgotten, Newt Gingrich's American Solutions for Winning the Future (of "Drill Here, Drill Now" fame) is also jumping into the astroturf game, running an anti-climate bill petition on its website and  providing "tools" for the recess. His group is heavily funded by Peabody, American Electric Power, and other oil and gas producers. Gingrich has also signed on as an official cosponsor of the tea-baggers movement.

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Carol Browner strongly backs bipartisan cap-and-trade bill

Among the forged anti-climate letters that found their way to Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) earlier this summer was a message purporting to be from the American Association of University Women (AAUW). One can only assume that the coal-funded astroturfer who faked the letter worried that the etters he forged from minority groups wouldn't get Perriello's attention. It's a given fact among conservatives, after all, that liberal Democrats always pay more attention to elites from the ivory tower than regular folk, and Perriello's district does contain Mr. Jefferson's University of Virginia.

No surprise that the AAUW wasn't too pleased. On Thursday evening, AAUW issued a statement condemning the letters as "blatant fraud" and "outright deceit."  The group noted that it has never taken a position one way or another on climate and energy policy.

AAUW focuses on "pay equity, family-friendly workplaces and education," said Executive Director Linda D. Hallman. Moreover, as the group told the Washington Post, it doesn't even have a branch in Charlottesville (UVA's home), from which the letter was supposedly sent.

Perhaps Bonner & Associates/Hawthorn/the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity should hire employees more adroit with "the Google."

Here's the full statement issued by AAUW:

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

What to make of the new climate poll

Crossposted from JackandJillPolitics.com - August 5th, 2009

This week revealed some of the best and worst moments in the role of people of color in the struggle over our nation’s energy and economic future.

First, fraudulent attempts by coal lobbyists to defeat clean energy legislation, by faking support from communities of color, were uncovered.

Then, just yesterday, Green For All, the Hip Hop Caucus, and the Obama Administration announced a new campaign centered around bringing clean energy economy to communities of color: Green the Block.

The contrast between these two efforts illustrates the difference between deceptively using and genuinely engaging communities of color.

The Coal Lobbying Forgery

It started when Congressman Tom Periello’s (D-VA) staff was surprised to see identical letters from local Latino and African American organizations in opposition to the House of Representatives’ clean energy bill (officially called the American Clean Energy and Security Act, or ACES). So, they called the groups (the local NAACP chapter and Creciendo Juntos), only to find the letters were fakes sent by lobbyists for the coal industry.

(Photo courtesty of ThinkProgress.org)

Investigations over the last week have revealed that the lobbying firm Bonner & Associates sent a dozen forged letters to Congress, urging Representatives to oppose ACES. Bonner was subcontracted by another lobbying firm, the Hawthorne group, which was hired by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity group, a coal industry group.

Considering that ACES only passed with a vote of 219-212, this foul play threatened to effectively destroy the push for federal clean energy legislation – legislation that could create millions of jobs, revitalize U.S. manufacturing, and transition America to a clean-energy economy.

Perhaps the coal lobbyists thought they could get away with their forgery because of the misguided assumption that communities of color are generally disengaged from politics, and from issues related to the environment and climate change specifically.

In fact, the opposite is true.  People of color and groups that work with them are, now more than ever, taking a leadership role in the push for clean energy and bold climate policy.

Green For All, the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and a number of other civil rights groups with deep roots in communities of color were instrumental in strengthening the bill with more access to jobs and economic opportunity for low-income communities. Once these provisions made it into the bill, these groups successfully pushed to help pass ACES.

And these organizations continue to lead now, as the Senate crafts its version of climate and energy legislation.  The Climate Equity Alliance, a coalition of civil rights and economic justice groups including Green For All and the NAACP, has been active in pushing for climate and energy legislation that works for disadvantaged communities.

Born out of that ideal comes the Green the Block campaign.

Green the Block
Yesterday I – along with Reverend Lennox Yearwood Jr. and several Obama Administration officials – announced the Green the Block campaign at the White House (check out photos). Green the Block is a campaign from Green For All and the Hip Hop Caucus to mobilize and engage communities of color and low-income communities in the movement for a clean energy economy.

Green the Block is based on the principle that lasting change will come only to communities that are active in their own transformation.  It’s about engaging people of color in the effort to bring a thriving clean-energy economy to communities that for too long have been broke and broken. And it’s about ensuring a fair share for these communities in the economic, social and environmental benefits of clean energy.

To successfully combat poverty and pollution, we need a vibrant, popular movement for change – one that will easily defeat any “astroturf” stunts in which corporate interests fake popular support for their agenda.

We need a clean energy economy rooted in the values of shared prosperity and opportunity for all – and we need to engage, not use, communities of color to make it happen.

That’s one of the many things that corporate coal lobbyists will never do.  And it is exactly what Green the Block is all about.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

A scientific hack job that won’t cripple climate talks

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity claims to be shocked, shocked that forged anti-climate-bill letters were sent to members of Congress by one of its subcontractors, saying it was "an isolated incident." But it seems ACCCE also engaged in some fishy behavior last year during debate over a Senate climate bill.

Grist contributor Sue Sturgis of the Institute for Southern Studies reported in May 2008 that a representative for ACCCE, then known as Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), was caught misrepresenting the group in a phone call that aimed to drum up opposition to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. In a call to an activist at the North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an ABEC representative lied about the fact that the group represents and lobbies on behalf of the electric utility industry.

Shortly thereafter, ACCCE senior communications director Steve Gates issued a statement attributing the misrepresentation of their group to "one new staff member -- who is no longer working on this project." Gates said the staffer "decided to 'wing it' when asked some questions that were off her script. This staff person clearly should have answered 'Yes' when asked if ABEC was related to the utility industry."

Sound familiar?

We may learn more as the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming gets rolling with its investigation into the forged letters. The scandal began with the discovery of falsified letters to Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), purportedly sent by Creciendo Junotos, a Hispanic advocacy group, and the local branch of the NAACP. On Tuesday, Perriello said that he also received fake letters on behalf of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, a Charlottesville senior citizens agency, and the American Association of University Women. Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Penn.) and Chris Carney (D-Penn.) received forged letters too.

Meanwhile, ACCCE is kicking off a $1 million campaign to convince Senate Democrats in coal-dependent states to vote against a climate bill this fall. The group's efforts will include 225,000 "volunteers" -- dubbed "America's Power Army" -- who will "visit town hall meetings, fairs and other functions attended by members of Congress and ask questions about energy policy," reports Greenwire.

"This is the purest form of grassroots," said Joe Lucas, an ACCCE spokesman. "It's facilitating constituents to talk one-on-one with members of Congress."

With ACCCE's recent track record, we'll be eager to see what comes of its "voluntary" army.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

One of the more macabre aspects of the still-evolving scandal involving the forged letters to Congress on the climate legislation was the disavowal of all responsibility by the Hawthorn Group -- the astro-turf lobbying group that has worked for nearly a decade to snooker public officials about allegedly "clean coal."

Since 2000, Hawthorn has worked for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electrcity (ACCCE), the alliance of coal companies, coal-burning power companies and coal-hauling railroads that seeks to convince us that coal is "essential" to America's future.

After the forgery scandal broke, Hawthorn quickly moved to blame its subcontractor, Bonner & Associates.   Noted Hawthorn CEO Michael Coe:

The Hawthorn Group deeply regrets that Bonner & Associates caused the fabricated letters to be sent to the congressional offices and its failure to follow up appropriately when they discovered the error. We maintain the highest ethical and quality control standards for our work, and nothing like this has happened in our 17 years in business.

What Coe didn't mention, of course, was that earlier this year Hawthorn was boasting to "Friends & Family" about how it had manipulated both politicians and the major media to extol the virtues of "clean coal" -- something that doesn't even exist!

The presidential campaign concluded with both candidates, their running mates and surrogates talking about and supporting clean coal technology... This was a 180-degree turn from earlier in the campaign."

So whether Hawthorn knew about the recent forgeries or not -- and we hope Rep. Ed Markey's investigation will uncover the truth -- the company appears to pride itself in conducting practices that deceive officials about the public's support for "clean coal."

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

A scientific hack job that won’t cripple climate talks

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Rep. Ed Markey wants to get to the bottom of the story.Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wants answers from the pro-coal group that funded the organization responsible for the forged letters sent to House members.

Markey, chair of the Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, sent a letter to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) on Wednesday requesting information about its role in the fraudulent letters urging representatives to vote against the House climate and energy bill. ACCCE came forward earlier this week to acknowledge that it had contracted with Hawthorn Group, a consulting firm, which in turn subcontracted with Bonner & Associates, which has admitted that a staffer sent the forged letters.

ACCCE issued a statement on Monday expressing "outrage" over the falsified letters and claiming that it is also a victim in the situation. But as we reported yesterday, documents from ACCCE reveal that it knew about the forged letters two days before lawmakers narrowly approved the climate bill, yet did not make an effort to alert members that they had received the fake letters.

"The deliberate inaction prior to the House vote and the extended silence after the vote -- some 40 days after ACCCE knew what had happened -- raises serious concerns," Markey writes in his letter to ACCCE President and CEO Stephen L. Miller.

Markey issued a long list of questions seeking clarification about ACCCE's role, its relationship to the contracted organizations, and whether any effort was made on its part to rectify the situation once the forgeries were discovered.

Markey also raises questions about the group's use of astroturfing methods, seeking to determine whether the group used the forged letters "in any broadcast ads, direct mail, 'push polls,' online ads, blog posts, email outreach, viral marketing campaigns, 'street teams,' or any other new media." Markey has demanded a response to his letter by August 13.

Here is the full letter:

UPDATE: Wonk Room reports that Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) also received forged letters purportedly from the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, a Charlottesville senior citizens agency, and the American Association of University Women. Perriello's office had already confirmed that they recieved a forged letter from Creciendo Junotos, a Hispanic advocacy group, and five letters claiming to be from the local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) and Chris Carney (D-PA) also received forged letters.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Officials at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) are claiming to be victims of the forged anti-climate bill letters sent to three members of Congress earlier this summer, but a background document released by the organization reveals that its leaders knew about the fake letters before the House voted on climate legislation.

In the document [PDF], ACCCE says it was made aware of the forged letters on June 24, 2009 -- two days before lawmakers narrowly approved the climate bill, better known as Waxman-Markey. The document shows that the coal group made no effort to inform lawmakers about the forged letter before the vote.

ACCCE is pointing fingers at two consulting firms that were doing grassroots organizing work in the coal industry's behalf. One of those firms, Bonner & Associates, admitted this week that one of its employees was the source of forged letters sent to Rep. Tom Perriello, a first-term Democrat whose district is located in central Virginia. The letters purported to be from people associated with the Hispanic community group Creciendo Juntos and urged Perriello to vote no on Waxman-Markey. Perriello ultimately voted for the bill.

According to the ACCCE document, the coalition contracted the grassroots organizing to Hawthorn Group, which in turn hired Bonner & Associates "to do limited outreach earlier this year" on the climate and energy bill. In a public statement issued Monday, ACCCE put the blame on Bonner & Associates, stating "the community groups involved, the Members of Congress who received the fraudulent letters, as well as ACCCE, were all victimized by this misconduct."

"ACCCE has always maintained high ethical and professional standards. In this case, the standards and practices that we require for grassroots advocacy outreach were not adhered to by Bonner and Associates," the group's leader, Stephen L. Miller, said in a statement.

ACCCE pins the blame for failing to notify Perriello on Hawthorn and/or Bonner & Associates:

Grist talked with ACCCE Vice President of Media Relations Lisa Camooso Miller on Tuesday, seeking clarification as to whether ACCCE had ever attempted to let the representatives know about the fake letters sent by a group that had been subcontracted to work on the group's behalf. Miller deferred to the question to Hawthorn. "I'm afraid that's a question you're going to have to ask the Hawthorn Group, because they are the consultant that was dealing with those things at the time," she told Grist.

"The document describes that we had every confidence at that time from Hawthorn Group that Bonner & Associates had reached out to the Congressional members," Miller said in a follow-up email. "It wasn't until last Friday that a Charlottesville paper disclosed that that had not happened. That is why we personally reached out to each one of those members yesterday."

Calls to Hawthorn Group were not returned before this story was posted online. In an interview today with The Washington Post, a Hawthorn spokesman blamed Bonner & Associates for the forged letters.

A spokesperson for Perriello said the congressman's office did not receive any notice of the forgeries from Bonner & Associates, Hawthorn Group, or ACCCE. Perriello learned of the forgeries last week, when Creciendo Juntos contacted his office, though the spokesperson said the office earlier suspected the letter might be a forgery. ACCCE contacted Perriello's office on Monday, expressing interest in meeting with the representative, but that was the first time his office had heard directly from ACCCE directly regarding the letters.

ACCCE's background document confirms that Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper and Chris Carney, both Democrats from Pennsylvania, also received fake letters opposing the climate bill. Both lawmakers opposed the legislation; calls requesting comment and additional information from their offices were not returned.

UPDATE: Hawthorn posted a statement on its website Tuesday night from the group's chief operating officer, Michael Coe, placing the blame on Bonner:

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricty (ACCCE) has led efforts to perpetuate the myth that coal can be clean. Now it turns out they are responsible for forging opposition to a strong climate bill.

According to E&E News, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) is the culprit responsible for hiring Bonner & Associates, the DC-based firm busted late last week for forging letters - ostensibly from NAACP and a Virgina network of Hispanic groups - opposing the US House climate bill (ACES.)

According to E&E's story today,

"The group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity acknowledged this afternoon that it had contracted Bonner & Associates earlier to perform "limited outreach," but the advocacy group denounced the firm's actions."

This makes our discovery that ACCCE changed their lobby disclosure report for the 2nd quarter of this year even more interesting. As I mentioned in that post, ACCCE initially reported a whopping $11,317,625 for lobbying on climate issues in the US House and Senate (Original PDF here); then four days later ACCCE submitted a revised report, showing just $544,853 in lobbying expenses (Amended PDF here.) 

That's over $10.5 million that ACCCE suddenly realized it didn't want to report as direct lobbying. At first, we figured that must have been tv advertising. But now we have to wonder - maybe that money has something to do with Bonner and Associates?

And that raises a second question. It doesn't seem likely that Bonner's firm would have generated fake opposition in just one Congressional district. So who else got fake letters?

House Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chair Edward Markey announced his committee would investigate the matter late last week, and the Sierra Club and MoveOn teamed up to call for a Justice Department investigation.

But if ACCCE wants to come clean, it doesn't need to wait for Congress or the Department of Justice. ACCCE should disclose what other members of Congress it asked Bonner to focus on, and how much it paid the firm for its dirty work.

A version of this post originally appeared at NRDC's Switchboard.

Related Links:

AP: Since 1997 “climate change has worsened and accelerated”

In other UK news: “Rain like this happens once every 1,000 years”

Let’s look at one of the illegally hacked emails in more detail

The controversial business of selling grassroots political campaigns is getting the spotlight treatment as details continue to emerge about the source of fake letters sent to a first-term member of Congress urging him to vote against the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill.

Congressman Tom Perriello represents Virginia's 5th district. His office received forged letters urging him to vote against climate legislation.Courtesy Rep. PerrielloThe Sierra Club on Monday petitioned the Department of Justice to investigate letters that were received by Rep. Tom Perriello, a Democrat representing central Virginia.

In a letter sent Monday [PDF] to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the Sierra Club asked the department to look into whether the letters, which came to light on Friday, constitute fraud. The liberal activist group MoveOn, meanwhile, is asking its members to sign an online petition urging the DOJ to "conduct a thorough investigation" into Bonner & Associates, the firm responsible for producing the forged letters that were faxed to Perriello's office.

Bonner & Associates has admitted that one of its employees was the source of a letter to Perriello that purported to come from Creciendo Juntos, a nonprofit network that represents the Hispanic community of Charlottesville, Va. Bonner said it has fired the temporary employee who sent the letter.

On Monday, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity admitted that it had contracted with Bonner & Associates to do "limited outreach" on the climate issue. The group denounced the fake letters and said it was considering legal action against Bonner.

Bonner sells itself as a manager and builder of grassroots campaigns, saying it can "find and educate leaders from local organizations who share a legitimate stake in the issues of our clients." In political circles, such firms are described as engaging in "astroturfing" -- based on the view that the grassroots political communications they deliver for clients do not represent actual public opinion.

Perriello, a first-term Democrat from a central Virginia district Republicans are keen to retake in 2010, also received letters that claimed to be from members of a chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; the letters bear a striking similarity to the one attributed to Creciendo Juntos. M. Rick Turner, president of the NAACP Albemarle-Charlottesville Branch, confirmed that the letters are fake -- none of the five individuals who purportedly signed the letters are employed by his organization.

Bonner & Associates has not admitted to being the source of the forged NAACP letters. Adding another layer to the story, the Charlottesville Daily Progress, which broke the story originally, reported that the NAACP letters "were faxed to Perriello's office from the Arlington headquarters of a company called Professional Risk Management Services Inc." An employee at the firm told the newspaper that she had no idea how or why the letters would have been sent from the PRM offices.

To date, only Perriello's office has said it received the forged letters opposing the climate bill. One former Bonner employee, however, came forward Friday to claim that deceitful campaigns are a regular practice at the firm, which specializes in building "strategic grassroots" support for clients.

Grist attempted to contact the offices of seven Democrats who were considered "swing votes" when the Waxman-Markey bill was voted on in the House in June. The three offices that responded said they have not received any letters they believe to be forged. A spokesperson for Rep. Glenn Nye, a Virginia Democrat who voted against the climate and energy bill, told Grist, "We're looking into it, but to my knowledge we have not received any similar letters."

Meanwhile, ThinkProgress found evidence on Monday that forged letters may also be targeting senators. A constituent of Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) received a reply to a letter opposing the climate bill that he never sent. Conrad is considered a key swing vote on climate legislation. Requests for comment from Conrad's office were not immediately returned. UPDATE: A Conrad spokesperson told Grist that the office did not receive a forged letter. In this instance, the wrong response was sent to a genuine correspondent, the spokesman said.

Whether Bonner & Associates will be prosecuted for illegal activities in this case remains to be seen. The Sierra Club's lawyers suggest to the DOJ that the firm should be investigated for wire fraud -- defined under U.S. law as a "scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises" using electronic communication (in this case, a fax machine). It is punishable by fine and/or up to 20 years in prison.

"A thorough investigation may reveal that Bonner & Associates devised a scheme to defraud the constituents of Rep. Perriello ... by depriving them of the the intangible right to the honest services of their representatives," wrote Sierra Club legal director Patrick Gallagher in the letter to Holder. "[O]ne of the most important 'honest services' provided by a representatives to his constituent is the service of considering the constituents' true opinions and viewpoints when contemplating how to vote on a bill before Congress," wrote Gallagher. "This service cannot be rendered when the representative has been provided falsified or erroneous representations of those opinions or viewpoints."

In the letter, Gallagher also asks the DOJ to investigate whether forged letters have been sent to other representatives or senators, and whether other community organizations have been similarly misrepresented in other letters.

Sierra Club is also running ads [PDF] in Capitol Hill publications calling attention to the forged letters.

Neither MoveOn nor the Sierra Club, however, can file suit against Bonner & Associates, as the two groups were not directly harmed by the fraud. Chris Fleming, spokesman for the NAACP, told Grist on Monday that it "highly unlikely" that there would be a lawsuit, though Fleming said NAACP supports congressional investigation into the matter.

Calls to Creciendo Juntos were not immediately returned. UPDATE: Tim Freilich, a member of the executive committee for Creciendo Juntos, told Grist on Tuesday morning that the organization will discuss whether they would like to take any additional steps at their board meeting, which is scheduled to take place next week.

The most immediate action is likely to come through a congressional investigation. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, on Friday indicated that he will lead an investigation into the matter. Markey issued a letter late Monday requesting more information from Bonner & Associates founder Jack Bonner and giving him until August 12 to respond.

Unlike lobbyists, who are required by law to register each year and must report their lobbying activities each quarter, groups like Bonner that specialize in building grassroots campaigns are largely unregulated. They are not required to disclose their activities on behalf of clients.

Markey's Select Committee has the power to subpoena documents and individuals, should the desired information not be provided, and can conduct hearings.

"It is way too premature to say what the legal ramifications are going to be when we're just sending our first investigation letter," said Eben Burnham-Snyder, communications director for the committee.

A checkered history

This not the first time that Bonner & Associates has been accused of forging letters from minority groups. In 2002 the firm was caught using the name of an African American charity in faxes opposing legislation to lower drug prices. Those letters were sent on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

And Mother Jones ran a piece in 1997 detailing Bonner & Associates' work, calling them "a leader in the growing field of fake grassroots." ThinkProgress put together a history of the firm's questionable activities dating back as far as 1986, which includes defrauding the U.S. government in order to retain a contract and working on behalf of Philip Morris to build opposition to a workplace smoking ban.

UPDATE: Since this article was first posted, the number of confirmed forged letters has increased to 12. Pennsylvania Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper and Chris Carney, who both voted against the House climate bill, also received fake letters. These letters also appear to be from Bonner & Associates, according to an ACCCE document.

Additional reporting by Grist's Jon Hiskes.

Further reading: A more pro-Bonner perspective from CQ Politics blogger Bill Pascoe -- 'Crisis Communications Inc?' Jack Bonner Calling.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

In early April, the excellent investigative journalism show NOW on PBS ran an episode called "Can Coal be Earth-Friendly?"

In conjunction with the episode, NOW hosted an online debate between me and Joe Lucas, spokesflack for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). We were given a series of five questions. We each answered the questions, and were each given an opportunity to rebut the other's answers.

When I received Lucas's answers, I responded to them. When he received mine, he ... ran off like a pansy. I don't think he likes arguing with people who know what they're talking about and have more than a 30 second soundbite with which to respond.

The debate is reprinted below, with NOW's kind permission.

-----

Joe Lucas: Of course there is. Our opponents like to claim that we invented the term, when in fact clean coal (which is short for clean coal technology) has been an accepted term-of-art for several decades now.

The facts are simple. To date, we have used advanced emissions control technologies (i.e. clean coal technologies) to reduce emissions currently regulated under federal clean air act laws. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other emissions have been dramatically reduced over the past several decades. This type of reduction didn't just happen—especially given that our use of coal for generating electricity nearly tripled during this same period. It happened because of the use of technologies.

And like other technologies, clean coal technologies are truly evolutionary. Going forward, this same type of technological innovation will lead to reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

David Roberts: No. When coal is mined, it destroys the land and surrounding communities. When coal is washed, it produces millions of tons a year of toxic, water-polluting slurry. When coal is burned, it produces millions of tons a year of toxic ash and periodic disasters like the December spill in Tennessee. Coal combustion produces mercury and particulate pollution that leads to some 24,000 premature deaths a year and billions in healthcare costs, with pregnant mothers and young children particularly at risk.

All these problems would go unaddressed by so-called "clean coal," which would reduce just one pollutant, carbon dioxide. And even that promise is a phantom: Not a single commercial coal power plant in America captures or otherwise prevents CO2 emissions.

"Clean coal" is a PR gimmick.

David Roberts' Rebuttal: Mr. Lucas is right about one thing: reductions in conventional air pollutants from coal plants "didn't just happen." They were forced on the industry by federal law. The industry fought those laws tooth and nail for years and has been fined and sued hundreds of times for breaking them. Hardly something to boast about.

Incidentally, those air pollutants scrubbed out of smoke stacks? They end up in toxic coal ash waste—the kind that flooded Kingston, Tennessee last December. Now the industry's fighting efforts to regulate waste ash. And fighting off efforts to clean up its Appalachia-destroying mining operations.

For a "clean" industry, Big Coal sure does seem averse to getting cleaner.

Joe Lucas: Coal is a fuel that is uniquely positioned to meet the needs for base load (constant, steady, on-demand) power. It is domestically abundant—we have more energy in the form of coal than the Middle East has oil. It is an affordable fuel and is getting cleaner everyday.

We support the use of all domestic fuels to meet America's growing energy needs. However, energy sources are more likely to be compliments to one another than competitors. Take wind and solar for example. They do not displace coal or other base load fuels because wind and solar are intermittent power sources - only producing electricity under certain optimum environmental conditions. To add these intermittent energy resources to the transmission grid, they have to be backed-up with a non-intermittent resource—like coal. What's more, it would take a one-mile band of windmills spanning across the entire equator (around 25,000 miles) just to generate enough power to meet 20% of America's electricity needs.

David Roberts: Yes. Putting aside the health and environmental effects above, coal is increasingly uneconomic. For one thing, a whole array of new studies suggests that U.S. coal reserves could begin declining within 20 years (not quite the "300 year supply" the industry touts).

As this fact and the inevitability of greenhouse-pollution restrictions become more widely understood, new coal plants are being exposed as risky and unsound investments, which is why nearly 100 proposed plants have been canceled in the past two years. States dependent on coal are already seeing their electrical rates skyrocket, and coal utilities are requesting further rate hikes.

Despite coal industry claims, U.S. coal power is neither "abundant" nor "cheap." It's a sinking ship.

David Roberts' Rebuttal: Here's a detailed plan to meet America's energy needs without new coal plants, using a combination of efficiency and clean renewable power. Here's another, another, another, another, and more. Just last week the Department of Interior released a study showing that offshore wind alone could satisfy U.S. electricity needs.

The pressure to build new coal plants is political—a result of the $40 million PR campaign Mr. Lucas is running—not technological.

The message that there's "no alternative" to coal's enormous health and environmental costs is fear mongering. It's a vote against American ingenuity and resourcefulness.

Joe Lucas: We support a mandatory federal carbon management program. In order for such a program to achieve its goals, it must 1) achieve emissions reductions, 2) promote greater energy independence by maintaining fuel diversity, and 3) ensure that businesses and families are not paying higher than necessary energy costs.

In that regard, technology is the key. Recently, more and more policy makers have adopted the notion that a federal climate policy necessitates developing and deploying carbon capture and storage technologies as the foundation for such a policy. President Obama has talked about this as a part of his strategy. Other distinguished academic, governmental, and non-governmental organizations have indicated that CCS (carbon capture and storage) technology is essential to meeting the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale.

David Roberts: Asked whether human greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change, coal pitchman Joe Lucas famously said, "I don't know. I'm not a scientist." Happily, non-scientists can use Google to find out what scientists think, and they overwhelmingly agree: climate change is urgent and potentially catastrophic. In the face of this kind of problem, "containing" coal's emissions—which equal those of the entire transportation sector—is unambitious at best. Those emissions need to be phased out, as quickly as possible.

It's simple: the industry should be forbidden from building new coal plants unless they meet stringent CO2 emissions standards. And over time, all existing coal plants should be required to meet those standards as well, or shut down. If coal can compete in a carbon-constrained world, good. If not, it should move out of the way for solutions that can.

David Roberts' Rebuttal: Big Coal sure has a funny way of "supporting" a plan to reduce climate pollution. It has sponsored, with its allies in Big Oil, a decades-long effort to confuse and deceive the public about global warming. It is still funding groups and politicians that work to block mandatory pollution reductions. Mr. Lucas even linked to such a politician in his response!

With public pressure building, the industry has shifted from battling to co-opting energy/climate legislation, attempting to transform it into a corporate welfare slush fund. An easy tip for spotting subsidy seekers: they repeat the word "technology" a lot! (As Mr. Lucas does several times.)

David Roberts: Put it this way: there is no other way forward for the U.S. coal industry. Coal is effectively made of carbon, so there's no way to use it without producing millions of tons of CO2. The best case scenario for the industry, then, is to be able to capture the stuff and bury it back underground.

But despite the misleading PR from industry, experts agree that CCS is at least 10-15 years out and will be extremely expensive when it finally arrives. Sequestration is arguably important for the developing world, and worth researching for that reason, but it's unlikely to save the U.S. coal industry.

David Roberts' Rebuttal: CCS may well be needed for meeting global carbon reduction targets, though there is considerable debate on that point. (It's a genuine dilemma what to do about the spread of dirty coal in China and India.) But it is crystal clear that America can meet its carbon-reduction goals without CCS.

More to the point: Mr. Lucas's group is fronting an effort to smuggle dirty coal plants into the U.S. under the 10-15-years-off promise of CCS. The industry calls such plants "CCS-ready," much like my driveway is Ferrari-ready.

Watch for the shell game.

Joe Lucas: Recently, the President said that if the cost of a federal carbon management program were too high, people wouldn't do it. Similarly, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that if you make a country choose between growing their economy or reducing emissions—they'll choose their economy every time. So we need to find a solution that allows us to have both—and President Obama and other policy makers realize that.

By deploying CCS technology we can preserve access to affordable energy. This protects and hopefully creates jobs in the manufacturing sector and helps families balance household budgets. Additionally, a study done with several of the nation's leading industrial unions showed that deploying CCS technologies will create over one million job years—and as one of the union representatives said in describing these jobs, these are jobs that pay enough so that you can afford to raise a family.

So investing in clean coal technologies for carbon capture and storage is clearly a part of the President's energy goals. Doing so meets his three primary objectives of 1) creating jobs, 2) promoting greater energy independence, and 3) increasing environmental protection.

David Roberts: Obama supports "clean coal" for a simple reason: coal-state legislators wield a great deal of power in Congress. No national politician can afford to directly confront the network of industry lobby groups and legislators that defends coal's interests.

Obama will direct considerable federal money toward research and deployment for CCS; it's part of the price he has to pay to bring coal-state legislators on board for serious climate change legislation.

The key issue is whether Obama will allow the coal industry to build new dirty coal plants—plants without CCS. He said on the campaign trail that he will not. We'll see if he keeps that promise.

David Roberts' Rebuttal: Mr. Lucas's first paragraph is absolutely correct, but the second is a head-smacking non sequitur. If we want the transition to a clean, green economy to produce jobs and prosperity, why would we focus on the most costly path forward?

International consulting firm McKinsey & Co. has produced the definitive cost curve comparing various emission reduction strategies. CCS is at the far right—among the two or three most expensive out of dozens of alternatives. The smart strategy is to focus on those at the left, the ones that save rather than cost money. (They also generate more jobs.) That's Economics 101!

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal