Reuters did not note energy group criticizing Obama reportedly "funded by the oil industry"
SUMMARY: In an article about President-elect Barack Obama's emphasis on alternative energy production in his economic stimulus speech, Reuters quoted criticism of Obama's plan by Thomas Pyle of the Institute for Energy Research. However, the article did not mention the Institute for Energy Research's ties to the oil industry or that Exxon Mobil Corp. has funded the organization.
In a January 8 article about President-elect Barack Obama's emphasis on alternative energy production in his economic stimulus speech that day, Reuters wrote: "Not everyone cheered Obama's plan. Private companies could use domestic energy resources like oil and coal to create jobs without the hefty price tag for taxpayers, said Thomas Pyle of the Institute for Energy Research, in a statement." Reuters further quoted Pyle's assertion that "[t]he road to economic recovery will be paved with private sector investment, not government-sponsored asphalt." But the Reuters article did not note the Institute for Energy Research's own ties to "[p]rivate companies" with interests in "domestic energy resources like oil." In fact, the Institute's funders include the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the president of which is an executive vice president of Koch Industries, whose subsidiaries "have been in the petroleum business since 1940." Further, Reuters previously reported that Exxon Mobil Corp. has funded the group. Indeed, according to a September 14, 2008, Washington Post article, the Institute is "funded by the oil industry."
According to Internal Revenue Service data compiled by mediatransparency.org -- a website recently acquired by Media Matters Action Network -- the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation donated $85,000 in grants to the Institute between 1997 and 2005. According to its IRS Form 990 for 2006 (accessed from the GuideStar database), the foundation donated an additional $25,000 to the Institute that year. According to his bio page on the website of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, of which he is president, Richard Fink is president and serves on the board of directors of the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. The bio also states that Fink is "an executive vice president and member of the board of directors of Koch Industries, Inc., where he leads the legal, government, community relations and communication capabilities for Koch Industries." Fink is listed as "President/Director" of the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation on the group's 2004, 2005, and 2006 IRS Form 990.
Koch Industries' website states:
Koch companies have been in the petroleum business since 1940, growing our refining capacity more than 80-fold. Today these companies engage in petroleum refining, chemicals and base oil production, crude oil supply, and wholesale marketing of fuels, base oils, petrochemicals, asphalt and other products.
Additionally, in a May 23, 2008, article, Reuters reported that "Exxon Mobil Corp is pulling contributions to several groups that have downplayed the risks that greenhouse gas-emissions could lead to global warming," including the Institute for Energy Research. Reuters further reported that Exxon Mobil Corp. "said in its corporate citizenship report that the groups' 'position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.' " Indeed, in disclosing its "Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments," Exxon Mobil Corp. reported that Exxon and its foundation contributed $95,000 to the Institute in 2007 and contributed $65,000 in 2006.
Reuters has quoted Institute staff criticizing Obama's alternative energy proposals and energy-related appointments in three other articles during the past four months, each time failing to mention the organization's ties to the oil industry.
From the January 8 Reuters article:
The solar industry is ready to create jobs as soon as funding from the stimulus plan comes through -- in hard-hit manufacturing areas like Ohio and Michigan, said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association.
"The reality is what President-elect Obama is talking about are policies and incentives that will create jobs in all 50 states," Resch told Reuters.
Not everyone cheered Obama's plan. Private companies could use domestic energy resources like oil and coal to create jobs without the hefty price tag for taxpayers, said Thomas Pyle of the Institute for Energy Research, in a statement.
"The road to economic recovery will be paved with private sector investment, not government-sponsored asphalt," he said.
so it's really the "institute to make sure that everyone keeps using oil because then we can make continuing profits on that, whereas once the consumer pays for something like solar equipment, then the sunshine is free, but rush will tell you you're a fool to listen to all those liberals and you really need that suv that gets nine mpg and it's unamerican to even think green". that institute?
And don't forget, you can't tax something that's free
sure you can. They sell water bottles to the in-crowd and we found out later they were just bottling ground water.
The high cost of fuel this past year did serious damage to our economy and society. After a brief reprieve gas prices are inching back up again. Our nation should not allow other nations to have such power over us and our economy . We have so much available to us in the way of technology and free sources of energy. WE seriously need to get on with becoming an energy independent nation. We are spending billions upon billions in bail out dollars. Why not spend some of those billions in getting alternative energy projects set up. We could create clean cheap energy, millions of badly needed new green jobs and lessen our dependence on foreign oil all in one fell swoop. I just read an eye opening book by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009. It would cost the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to drive and charge an electric car.If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. Why don't we use some of the billions in bail out money to bail us out of our dependence on foreign oil? This past year the high cost of fuel so seriously damaged our economy and society that the ripple effects will be felt for years to come. www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
I remember McCain flying off to an oli rig on behalf to the drill baby drill crowd. Follow the money.
What do we do until the private sector decides to start investing? Pray (if that's your cup of tea) that we don't lose our jobs and starve to death?
the private sector is too busy right now "realigning resources ' ( BOEING is layin off 4500 people soon ) It appears the private sector is also motre interested in saving CEO's and their salaries.
Wolf, what would you suggest the private sector do when in coming orders slow down, consumers are not spending, etc? Oh, I guess they should go to the government with hands out, ala the auto industry, the banking industry, certain newspapers, the porn industry (per Larry Flynt). Got it!!!!
Possibly look to new products to produce for sale. Look into untapped markets. In boeing's case lighter than air flight is an unexplored area they might spend some time and money on to their economic advantage. More likely they'll be more interested in the grooves that they already have worn into the economis substrate. Inovation, whats that? Sounds scary!
There is something to be said for the adverse affects of corporate inertia, look where it has gotten the auto companies among others. But you have to be in front of the curve and not lagging by several months (years). We don't know what the R&D departments of many of these corps are working on and we may not know for some years. Are those being laid off trained for that work or are they "floor workers"? Studebaker, years ago, made the transition from horse drawn carriages to automobiles, but they failed to keep pace in that market and they failed as a corporate entity. Boeing (as an example) is undoubtably working on things related to their business interests that will come to fruation in the future, but that work has to be funded in some manner and it probably comes unfortunately at the expense of the "floor workers" for the time being.
The problem is that as companies lay of thousands more, the "economy" - meaning the money that people spend - only gets smaller... perpetuating the cycle. So we'll be stuck in this economic rut as long as we want to be. Until there a hiring uptick, spending won't increase (and thus - no hiring uptick.) Until the housing market stabalizes, credit will stay tight (which in turn keeps the housing market unstable.) And once credit starts flowing again, you can bet that interest rates will go back up - thus slowing down credit again. The problem with the whole "markets are rational" attitude is that the many INDIVIDUALS that make up the market are too concerned with their short term position and not with the long term health (and stability) of the economy to act collectively. (Which is the only real way for the market to TRULY be rational.)
But short term greed will continue to trump long term interests, especially if we keep letting these CEO cockroaches off the hook when their companioes fail, despite the millions and millions and millions that they're being paid. (...And millions!) Every year these guys get two or three times what most people will get in their entire carrers - whether they succeed of not! (Do the math on $7M per year vs. $70K per year - that's 100x - just about 3x that length of a typical career.) THAT'S what wrong about all this.
My company just laid of 15% of it's staff - yet the VP still found money in the budget to get his daughter some temp work while she's off from school. It's not really that important (just as the the private jest used by the auto CEO's wasn't.) Neither would really have saved any jobs - but it sends the wrong signal, and is evidence of the kind of thinking that insulates those that make the decisions from those they affect.
Businesses are doing the right thing in trying to cut costs and reduce overhead during predicted lean times. Unfortunately it seems that larger corporate entities are unable to find any cost cutting measures above the worker bee level. Funny that, isn't it?
This is why the government has to step in to fill the gap the market is creating. The so-called invisible hand of the market has no empathy or consideration for human misery. It's all well and good to describe our current economic collapse as a tough patch, but who wants to volunteer to feel the pain of it?
But more importantly, it is the conservative mantra that if we just cut taxes on the top a little bit more it will create this giant pool of wealth that will instantly be transformed into jobs for everyone. When exactly was this going to happen?
I would suggest that some of that (spending) will happen when we realize that 93% of us are still employed at fairly decent jobs, that our standard of living, while changing slightly, is still the envy of most of the world, etc. Sure, some of us are having difficult times right now and they may continue for awhile, but we can work through it. Sometimes if we don't have a job, we have to create one for ourselves (and others). If I had all the answers, I would be a whole lot richer that I am, but I believe in the "American Dream" because there are those out there that have or are living it and many of us, if we applied ourselves instead of curling up in the corner and moaning about our conditions, could do the same.
I'd disagree that 93% of us have decent jobs. The American job market has been slowly eroding since the 80s. It's an unfortunate fact that large numbers of the population are limited in their capacity, not everyone can excel in school no matter how hard they try and far more new business ideas fail than succeed. There used to be a lot more trade skill and blue collar jobs available that would allow a person to support themselves for life. A true recovery neds to include figuring out how to get those jobs back.
Yeah, there probably are too many people crying that the sky is falling and giving up, but that shouldn't mean we ignore and deride as crybabies people who point out problems and sincerely want to correct them.
It is a complicated problem. I would suggest the private companies that produce a product consider investing their largesse in R&D when times are good, instead of fat bonuses to the CEO's, for once.
Do the layoffs involve engineers trained in the type of projects that are mentioned above, or are they "floor workers"? I work for a company that has expanded its R&D expenditure greatly the past 12-18 months because we have had a couple of fantastic years, but the rewards from that may be a while in coming to fruation and we don't know whether the process will stand up due to the current economic conditions.
I know a LOT of engineers out looking for jobs right now.
It's true that MOST of the job losses are in the "unskilled" category, but what's "most?" There's no shortage of (unfortunate) companies out there that are mortgaging their futures so that the bonuses don't stop coming to the to brass.
(Tell me: Why should ANYONE get a bonus if the company loses money and.or jobs? If you can't make a profit without cutting staff, why should you get a bonus?!)
and, pray tell, who funds those on the otherside of the issue. Chesapeke, and the others who will make a bundle off of stupid alternative energy projects.
Bernie Madoff called, he's got just the investment your looking for. What could go wrong, he's such an upright person and all.
<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
In today's highly charged environment of climate change policy, efforts are often made to impugn the credibility of those engaged in the debate through assertions that their views are a product of financial relationships rather than sincerely held beliefs or objective research...The public discourse suffers as arguments are not explored in sufficient detail...
<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
Often overlooked or ignored in such discussions is the fact that the American scientific enterprise is critically dependt on funding from the federal government...Yet, the focus remains on the alleged distoring of influence of corporate funding on scientific results...
<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
One of the most prominent and frequently voiced fears is that private interests can undermine objectivity, inject bias and error, lead to the suppression of results, and perhaps even preciptate outright fraud...Equally overlooked are concerns that public funding generates unwelcome pressures on scientists to conform to prevailing beliefs...
<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
Studies of organizations and bureacracies demonstrate that, over time, institutions devise strategies to perpetuate their continued existence and encourage their expansion. Organizations have agendas and preferences and these guide the actions they take. -- Marshall Institure
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/289.pdf
Knowing the funding of a group is important and it should be acknowledged in an article.
And this particular issue has nothing to do with climate change.
and, pray tell, who funds those on the otherside of the issue. Chesapeke, and the others who will make a bundle off of stupid alternative energy projects.
Continued reliance on fossil fuels is the dumbass way to go. The sooner we get off of them, the better.
What you said!
I was remembering all the enthusiasm(being polite here) last summer for drilling our way to cheaper gasoline. Somehow the price came down without doing so. I appreciate that it won't last, unless demand continues to drop. Still another example of wingnuttia's demand that we're all doomed unless they have their way.
and put an s on the end of demand.
An item up on FDLhttp://firedoglake.com/2009/01/10/exxon-calls-for-carbon-tax-really/ Amazing, if they follow through on it.