Pr firms are paid to engage in unethical tactics that intimidate and silence Americans who are exercising their rights to support actions that combat climate change.
Wealthy and powerful corporate entities are dragging citizens and public interest opponents through meritless, but protracted, and extremely costly litigation to expose anyone who dares to stand up to them to financial and personal ruin. In its work to silence its critics, the fossil fuel industry is also pushing for the passage of anti protest laws dressed up as critical infrastructure protection statutes.
Documents don't lie. While BP touted carbon capture is key to its transition to cleaner fuel, the company privately hope this approach would quote enable the full use of fossil fuels across the energy transition and beyond end quote. We also found that Excellon spent near Lady seventy million dollars to advertise its research in alga based biofuels, but company documents revealed that technology is quote still decades away from the scale we need.
WHEW. Last week was a big one for climate hearings wrap Katie Porter and her Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight Investigations has been looking into pr firms and their role in warping the public discourse on climate She had a hearing on that subject this past week.
Rep.
Jimmy Raskin and his Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Liberties focused the third of his free speech hearings on attacks on environmentalists week, and Rep's Carolyn Maloney and Rocanna focused the third of their climate disinfo hearings this past week on climate justice and shared some explosive new documents that their investigation has uncovered. You just heard RUP's Porto,
Rascin and Maloney up at the top of this episode. Today, I'll look at what happened in those hearings and what's resulting from them. That's coming up right after the break. I'm in me Westerveld and this is drilled. The House Oversight Committee is still waiting on oil companies to comply with their subpoenas, but in the meantime they have received an initial batch of documents, and some of them are
pretty revealing. Despite its constant advertizing of algae biofuels. For example, apparently Exonmobile invests a tiny fraction in that program compared to what it invests in its fossil fuel portfolio, and internally company officials talk about the technology being decades away at best. I remember covering algae based biofuels back in the early two thousands, and scientists were saying that then
two I was twenty years ago. The most damning document where Exon was concerned, though, was a draft policy from the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative. In it, the oil major asked the group to remove reference to the Paris Agreement, noting that quote support for the Paris Agreement goals and member company advocacy are separate concepts and not directly related. Creating a tie between our advocacy and engagements and the Paris Agreement could create a potential commitment to advocate on
the Paris Agreement goals. Publicly, of course, Exon Mobil has proclaimed its commitment to the Paris Agreement over and over again. It claims to have supported it since twenty fifteen. Here's Rep. Maloney in the hearing.
We obtained an eternal memo prepared for the CEO of Exxon, Darren Woods in twenty nineteen, and this memo shows how Exxon and Chevron work behind the scenes to drastically reduce and weaken climate pledges made by an industry called the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative. The MIMO shows that two companies wanted to remove any commitment for oil companies to quote align their advocacy with their climate related positions end quote.
Both in the House Oversight Committee hearing and importers hearing on the use of PR to spin climate disinformation, Republicans and their witnesses made the same arguments over and over. It's a First Amendment violation to come after climate disinformation. Opinions you don't like aren't disinformation. Here's reporter and witness Christine Arena debunking the idea that you can't go after disinformation without stepping afoul of the First Amendment.
Based on your experience, do you know what the standard practices are in the public relations industry?
I certainly do.
According to your written testimony, you wrote, quote there is nothing standard or ethical about the practices of the PR firms we are discussing today. What makes these practices different from the standard work PR firms perform for clients?
You know, hiring fake protesters is unethical in multiple ways. First, they're fake protests. There's the simulation of community support or opposition that isn't really necessarily real. Secondly, it is not disclosed who is paying for and funding those paid protesters. And Thirdly, those paid protesters that I wrote about were actually engaging in what I believe for harassment behaviors, that is stocking Colorado Rising members as they were trying to
make their voices heard. I do not believe that there is a single trade association in my industry that would consider the hiring of fake protesters to be an ethical marketing practice, and I certainly don't consider that standard.
Congresswoman Laurie Trahan from Massachusetts also tried to make this basic point.
I think one thing that's important to note is that we can have free speech and stop the spread of disinformation if we stop with the grand standing and just get to sensible policy making.
That didn't stop a whole lot of what about is I'm on free speech? Here's Republican Representative Blake Moore from Utah in the pr hearing.
This committee should be wary of any attempt to stifle the exercise of free speech, regardless of whether or not the majority agrees with the viewpoint.
And here's Republican's favorite reformed environmentalist Michael Schellenberger, the minority witness in the Climate Disinfo hearing.
As for misinformation about climate change and energy, it is rife on all sides, and I question whether the demands for censorship by big tech firms are being made in good faith or are consistent with the rights protected by the First Amendment.
That reference to big tech firms was related to the Biden administration's attempt to crack down on COVID misinformation on Facebook, which somehow got trotted out all throughout these hearings despite having nothing to do with climate as proof that the
administration is anti free speech. It's ironic that so many fossil fuel industry allies were so concerned about the free speech of corporations these hearings, while Rep. Raskin in his hearing was digging into the industry's very real, very well funded, and very effective efforts to quash the free speech of individuals.
The Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Liberties was particularly focused on two key tactics, strategic litigation against public participation or slab suits, and the proliferation of anti protest laws or critical infrastructure laws which place steep fines and penalties on protests. Slapsuits are civil suits that are generally filed by companies against individuals or nonprofits that criticize or protest against them. They can be extremely costly and time intensive to fight,
and thus have a chilling effect on civic action. If you listened to our season on the Chevron, Ecuador case, the suit filed against attorney's even Donziger was considered by most advocates to be a slap suit. In the wake of the Standing Rock protests in twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen, Energy Transfer Partners sued Greenpeace and several activists in a
massive slapsuit, part of which is still ongoing. The anti protest laws were part of the industry backlash to Standing Rock two, aimed at cracking down on pipeline protests in particular. These are both really clear examples of entities with more power limiting the free speech rights of individuals with less power, a textbook example of First Amendment infringement, unlike the case of a company not being able to lie to the public with impunity.
My name is Deepa Pedmanaba and I am Deputy General Council for Greenpeace USI.
PAD Manaben testified at Raskin's hearing last week. Greenpeace has had experience and stealing with both slabs and anti protest bills.
Slaps and anti protest bills are really two sides of the same coin. There are tactics used by the same corporate actors to quash dissent. We have two lawsuits hanging over our heads, filed by one filed by Resolute Forest Products,
another filed by Energy Transfer. The first lawsuit was filed in May of twenty sixteen, and that was by Resolute Forest Products, which is one of Canada's largest logging companies, and they suit us for one hundred million dollars alleging damages from a public campaign we had exposing the company's harmful business practices.
And then in.
August of twenty seventeen, a very similar suit was filed by Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access pipeline, and this was for three hundred million dollars for allegedly orchestrating the resistance at Standing Rock. And so these complaints were actually very similar, They had a similar template, and
they were actually filed by the same lawyers. And so the lawyers behind these suits had actually indicated that they were shopping this tactic around, and it wouldn't be a surprise to see other corporations filing similar suits.
In fact, she says she's seen an uptick in slaps being filed against environmentalists in the years since Standing Rock.
So there has absolutely been an uptick in oil companies filing slaps over the last few years. But I would say what's even more concerning is their attempt to create new dangerous legal precedent through slabs. As I mentioned before, in August of twenty seventeen, we had the Energy Transfer suit filed. What I didn't mention is that although it was for three hundred million dollars, the company didn't stop there.
Energy Transfer brought claims under the Federal Racketeer, Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO, And as many know, RICO was a law that was created to go after the mafia for organized crime. And what made even more dangerous was that it allowed for the recovery of treble damages. So we were suddenly looking at an almost one billion
dollar lawsuit. An energy Transfer was alleging that our advocacy worked to uplift indigenous voices at Standing Rock constituted organized crime, and even though ultimately Energy Is Transfer's case was thrown out a federal court, in true slap like fashion, the company refiled an almost identical complaint in North Dakota State Court, which I should note lacks an anti slap statute, and
it also named additional individual defendants. And this is the case we continue to fight today, five years later after the original federal suit was filed.
Green Peace has also had activists arrested under anti protest laws.
Greenpeace USA activists were arrested in twenty nineteen under Texas's felony Critical Infrastructure law for unfurling banners under bridge, which temporarily block shipping and brought attention to the connection between the oil industry and climate change. And while we were ultimately not charged under the law, you can of course see how both tactics are used by corporation is to silence descent.
Currently, seventeen different states have these laws on the books, and according to Emma Fisher, one of the authors of a new report on these laws from the nonprofit Climate Cabinet, they've had bipartisan support in some states.
One thing that's concerning is, of course, as expected We've seen these critical infrastructure laws passed primarily in Republican controlled states, but not without some democratic support, and so I think it's important to recognize that not all Democrats are holding the line on this issue either. And we've actually seen a critical infrastructure bill introduced in Illinois, which is a
democratic trifecta state. We've seen other types of preemption laws introduced by Democrats in states like New Jersey, and so I think that's something to keep an eye out for that. You know, fossil fuel interests are they're going to work with any one who will work with them, and they're especially working in creative ways to get Democrats and labor groups on board.
There's a similar hodgepodge of laws around slap suits. Thirty one states have anti slap statutes on the books, which enable the easy dismissal of meritless slap suits, but it's easy enough for corporations to venue shop and find a state without one, which is why Rep. Raskin introduced new federal anti slap legislation the day after his hearing. It will make its way through all of the usual painful political gears, but it has a decent shot at passing.
Support for anti slap statutes has tended to be bipartisan, in part because companies have figured out a way to use them too. Earlier this year, Exxon, for example, invoked Massachusetts anti slap statute, calling Attorney General Mora Heey's fraud suit against the company a slap the argument it didn't work. That case is now moving into discovery, and when it goes to trial, Exon will make the argument that everything it's ever said about climate change is petitioning activity or
political speech and thus protected by the First Amendment. That's it for this time. Thanks for joining us, and we'll see you back here next week.
Drilled is an original Critical Frequency production. The show was created and reported by me Amy Westervelt. Original music and mixing and mastering for this episode by Peter duff. Our artwork is by Matthew Fleming. You can find us online at Drilled podcast dot com. You can also find us on Twitter at we are Drilled.
For ad free.
Episodes and bonus content, you can sign up for our newsletter at drilled podcast dot com or our Patreon at patreon dot com.
Slash drillt