Topic
In tandem with Ottawa and Alberta, top oil sands lobbyist Tom Corcoran keeps chipping away at Section 526. Third in a series.
Meet Tom Corcoran, the ultra-Republican hired to stop clean energy bills that threaten the flow of Alberta crude.
Alberta's premier made citizens buy a heavy-breathing Washington Post ad pushing dirty energy. Embarrassing.
Ed Stelmach got tossed from a once stable ship now rocked by petro dollar storms.
In Tom Corcoran's world, it's not worth trying to reason with certain opponents. Some warriors are on the right side in Washington's war over the oil sands. Others are irrevocably beyond recruiting.
Democrat congressman and clean energy champion Henry Waxman falls into the latter camp. "I've known him for years. He's a very nice guy but wrong on this issue," Corcoran tells me. "It would be a waste of time to talk him."
Composed and contained, Corcoran delivers his crisp assessment of his opponent without veering from his gentlemanly drawl.
The issue Corcoran mentions is a clean energy provision adopted in late 2007. It's called Section 526, and it's a major battleground in Washington's war over the oil sands. Rather than attempt to convince its author, Congressman Waxman, that the law would restrict imports from Alberta's oil sands, hurting U.S. energy security, Corcoran decided to fight him head on.
After all, he tells me, committed greenhouse gas reducers such as Waxman "are not going to change their opinion."
Attack on Section 526
When my account left off in yesterday's Tyee article, I was drinking coffee with oil sands top lobbyist Tom Corcoran at the Capitol Hill Club, a members-only Republican social hub in Washington, DC.
Corcoran had just finished explaining how he helped form a group called the Center for North American Energy Security in the summer of 2008. The group, whose purpose is to maximize the amount of unconventional fuels powering the United States, includes the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil and other oil industry majors as members.
Since its inception, the center has lobbied against any U.S. clean energy laws which could limit the growth of Alberta's oil sands.
Corcoran sees Canada as a major source of secure oil for fossil-fuel-dependent America -- and one where his allies have tens of billions of dollars invested.
Two of those allies, the American Petroleum Institute and the Canadian government, argue the industry's environmental footprint is shrinking yearly. Yet the industry still emits much more greenhouse gases overall than traditional operations in places like Texas or Saudi Arabia.
With limited time left to take meaningful action on global warming, green groups argue the United States should not be growing reliant on some of the planet's most carbon-intensive oil.
Corcoran's group entered this debate in 2008 with a strategic lobbying campaign designed to repeal Section 526, a clean energy provision adopted the year before.
The reason that Section 526 became a key battleground in Washington's war over the oil sands is that it forbids U.S. government agencies from purchasing "alternative" fuels with high carbon footprints.
One of its original authors, Congressmen Waxman, stated that the law should apply to fuels produced from Alberta's oil sands.
Canadian and Alberta government officials, fearing a precedent for wider bans, began fighting against that interpretation almost immediately. "We hope that we can find a solution to ensure that the oil keeps a-flowing," reads an internal email written by the Canadian embassy's Jason Tolland in early 2008.
Enlisting allies in the US military
Corcoran and his oil industry allies, meanwhile, determined early on that the U.S. military stood to be hit hardest by Section 526. The Department of Defense is by far the American government's biggest purchaser of fossil fuels.
Putting down his coffee at the Capitol Hill Club, Corcoran describes for me a hypothetical exchange in war-torn Afghanistan.
Imagine some observer arrives there and starts pestering a military official about the fuel he's using while trying to whip the Taliban. "'What's your carbon footprint?'"
Suddenly Corcoran's low-key drawl explodes into laughter. "It would make no sense!"
Presumably, the Department of Defense envisioned a similar scenario. Corcoran's group apparently had no problem making alliances with sympathetic officials.
The next step was to provide the Department of Defense with the Center for North American Energy Security's own legal opinion on Section 526. Essentially, Corcoran's associates felt the law's wording was too ambiguous for a blanket ban on purchases of oil-sands fuel. Even with clearer language, they argued, it'd be difficult to track Albertan fuel through the maze of pipelines and refineries supplying U.S. markets.
The Department of Defense eventually issued its own review of Section 526, coming to similar conclusions.
Lobbying by Canadian and Albertan governments
But Corcoran and his associates weren't the only ones cultivating influence within the U.S. military. Canadian and Alberta government representatives had also been convening with high-ranking army officials, according to internal embassy emails.
During one meeting in early February 2008, embassy representatives presented a laundry list of Section 526 concerns to Paul Bollinger, then in charge of interpreting the provision. President George W. Bush had already publicly lauded Alberta's vast fossil-fuel reserves, the Canadians argued. "Therefore," they added, "for the U.S. government to decline to purchase oil sands would send a contradictory signal."
Like Corcoran's center, Canadian representatives wanted a narrow interpretation of Section 526's language, a reading that wouldn't affect the oil-sands industry. Ideally though, the provision would be scrapped entirely. "An executive order or a repeal through Congressional action may be necessary," reads an embassy email from February 2008. "Post and the [Alberta] office will continue to make interventions with the Administration and Congress."
Corcoran's center and his oil company allies waged a similar campaign. The lobbying process, in his words, was actually quite simple. First his coalition figured out which policymakers, committees and congressional staffers might be unsympathetic to Section 526. "Then we talked to those people to a) alert them it exists; b) explain why it was a mistake; c) try to get support to repeal it," Corcoran tells me. "That was the process we embarked on in 2008."
Possibly as a result of such battle strategies -- aligned with those of the Canadian government -- the first attempts to overturn Section 526 began appearing that spring.
Waves of assaults
Two Republican congressmen from Texas proposed a repeal of Section 526 in March. Then identical legislation was introduced by an Oklahoma senator the next month. In May, the house passed a Defense Bill amendment limiting the provision's scope, but the changes were never signed into law. Two more unsuccessful attempts to repeal Section 526 were introduced in January 2009.
By March that same year, it appears the Alberta government still felt cautious enough about the provision to include it in its battle plans. One of the contractual duties for a high-powered lobbyist hired by the province reads as follows: "Provide advice for dealing with initiatives that could affect our interests (e.g. the next Section 526)."
A recent attempt to repeal Section 526 can perhaps be credited to Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach. The premier visited Washington early last May, meeting with senators, staffers and top-ranked energy official David Goldwyn.
Among those appointments was a conversation with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (who next month would completely drop his support for the comprehensive climate legislation he'd helped author). During the visit, Stelmach urged Graham to come visit Alberta's oil sands.
The same day, Stelmach found time to speak at an oil-sands-themed forum hosted by Corcoran's group, the Center for North American Energy Security.
That forum, which was also attended by the Consumer Energy Alliance, a fossil fuel advocacy group similar to Corcoran's, was held at the Canadian embassy.
Here the premier delivered the keynote address to oil-sands allies and others, stating that "it's easy to see how limits on energy are really limits on growth."
Four months later, Senator Lindsey Graham and two other Republican senators flew to Fort McMurray, the heart of Canada's oil-sands boom. They were given a tour of several oil-sands operations by the premier himself, but didn't meet with any environmental or First Nations groups.
"Dirty oil and dangerous oil comes from rogue regimes in the Mideast," Graham told CBC news afterwards. "The oil coming from Alberta in my view is not only acceptably clean, it is safe."
'What is the right timing?'
Back in Washington, Graham helped introduce the Oil Energy Security Act of 2010, a piece of legislation proposing to abolish Section 526.
That attempt died along with the last congress in December's midterm elections. But Corcoran says it won't be the last shot at repeal, not yet. "The question is, 'What is the right legislative vehicle?'" he tells me. "'What is the right timing?'"
Congressman Waxman, needless to say, remains firmly committed to seeing Section 526 survive. As he said in a letter to President Obama, "The problem is that oil can be extracted from the tar sands only by using three times the energy required to produce a barrel of conventional oil." Which means that shifting to oil-sands crude would boost greenhouse gas emissions by over a third, Waxman wrote.
Given what Tom Corcoran is paid to accomplish, it would indeed be "a waste of time" for him to try and win over Waxman. But the top oil-sands' salesman's other conversations clearly are paying off.
Earlier this month, a little more than a week after my chat with Corcoran, in fact, Republican congressman Kevin Nunes proposed a repeal of Section 526 in his wide-ranging Energy Roadmap for America. The bill so far has 56 co-sponsors and is winning praise from conservative activist groups.
Tomorrow: How Corcoran's group got another key clean energy law blocked and deleted with the support of the Canadian government. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
14
Login or register to post comments
Fiat lux
2 years ago
It is quite obvious that it
It is quite obvious that it was the same oil/big business mafia lobby that stopped the G8 gang from going for the "no fly zone" over Libya, as their stooges are back there already, licking Gadhafi's hands for forgiveness and eagerly waiting for his victory to return to "business as usual"
Ed Deak.
Jeffrey J.
2 years ago
Symptom of Failed Democracy
Democracy (rule by the people for the greater good) can be measured as a continuum. At some point, the structures of democracy can be so reduced that a society is barely deserving of the designation. What would such a world look like? Now we know.
Dembicki's stunning essays describe the dismantling of once great democracies. Canada has now joined the tin-pot regimes where money and greed have infiltrated the highest levels of leadership. Alberta, hijacked by the petroleum oligarchs, has turned its back on a century of Canadian rationality and is lining up to liquidate its lands.
We live in the most difficult of times. Canadians have virtually no voice any longer to prevent the deranged decisions of the ruling elite.
But thankfully, we still have independent media and journalists like the Tyee, Geoff Dembiki and Andrew Nikiforuk to tell us what is befalling us.
At least we will know the truth as our planet becomes uninhabitable. This has a moral significance, even if we can't prevent the harm.
Great series!
bfearn
2 years ago
It's all about....
MONEY.
The lust for more 'stuff' drives these decisions. To Conservatives global warming is a myth but that will change when they start losing their waterfront homes. Unfortunately by then it will be too late.
Tragic that the people who have too much are willing to risk everything so that they can have even more.
For a wonderful video go to -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
Conductor274
2 years ago
Conservative agenda
If you want to see just how far the Conservatives are willing to go to squash any resistance to their oil agenda read this. They are climate change deniers and Harper is their lead man in Canada.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/03/gop-votes-deny-existence-climate-change.php
realisticman
2 years ago
Maybe these guys are right.
We gotta go nuclear.
cboo44
2 years ago
Do Politically Correct Sources Count ?
So, add into the equation the consideration of buying oil from Mid-East Dictators, that ship oil by sea-going, fuel burning tanker or "dirty oil" in a pipeline from Canada. What to do??
I know it's a helluva lot of fun "labeling" our products and processes as "dirty" or "bad", but what are the personal responsibilities here?
Ed: Have you stopped driving into town? YOUR vehicle isn't "wind-powered" is it? If metal mining is "dirty" why are ALL of us still pounding away at our metallic computers? Against "money" ? Do without.
Either that or recognize that "life" is always a compromise and none of us should be very sanctimonious. We all have a footprint. We all depend on infrastructure that has a much larger footprint.
Fiat lux
2 years ago
CB.... I have a truck and
CB.... I have a truck and tractors, 2 generators for power outages ,and other oil burning engines. The point is, if you'd bothered to read what I wrote many times before, how much do we use for purely working purposes and how much unnecessarily om hysteria induced waste ?
We have the USAF B 52s over our heads every day, at probably 30,000' . Years ago I obtained their fuel consumption figures and calculated that the fuel they use during the time I can see them with binoculars, would last for all my machinery for 10 years. They waste it in a few minutes training for mass murder.
And this is going on every day, sometimes 1 or 2 others a half dozen times.
Then we have the huge commuter traffic near every city in the world, going to jobs they could easily do locally, or in the case of office slaves, at home.
Then we have the 100,000 ships on thde oceans carrying resources and goods that used to be made in every village, but now come thousands of km. to fill the fraudulent economic demands for "efficiency" and the profit demands of the stockmarkets.
Having learned our lessons during and after the war, instead of going on fancy vacations, we've built the highest degree of self sufficiency for ourselves and can live our old years, very well and in good comfort, with the best of foods, on an income some people can eat only dogfood and
on a very low energy use.'
Tens of millions could do it in Canada and billions around the world, in self sufficient communities, but are prevented by fraudulent economic theories and pimp politicians in the pay of the corporate mafia
Ed Deak.
Jeffrey J.
2 years ago
Tar Sands Gets More "Ethical" Every Day...
This logic makes no sense. But that doesn't stop these guys for one iota.
"Alberta's energy minister says natural disasters in Japan and political unrest in the Middle East underline the importance of the oil sands as a secure supply of energy."
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2011/03/16/japan-oil-sands/
Fiat lux
2 years ago
No logic has ever made any
No logic has ever made any sense to the faithful, because: "Faith conquers all"--and logic is the first victim of faith.
Ed Deak.
OwlRol
2 years ago
bfearn, Ed is correct - No
bfearn, Ed is correct - No logic has ever made any sense to the faithful, because: "Faith conquers all"--and logic is the first victim of faith.
Good movie, beautiful cinematography, a lot like DiCaprio's "The 11th. hour". Unfortunately, Christians I know, they're not the most extreme, wouldn't watch more than 3 to 5 minutes of this flick's intro., claiming it was Hollywood nonsense.
realisticman, nuclear is not realistic. It has potential from a scientific point of view, I don't want to get into the issues of uranium supply or radioactive waste disposal, let alone meltdowns that currently have many here in a panic to get iodine. But from a political and Capitalist economic angle, it is insane.
Just look at the cut throat scramble over oil.
Atomic Energy Canada lent China (many parts of which are very tectonically active) 3 Billion to purchase 2 CANDU reactors, more than a decade ago. Even Beijing has said that nuclear is only a temporary fix. And AEC had no qualms selling to Turkey, active as Japan while the Anatolian plate is being squeezed as if in a nutcracker, by the surrounding plates.
Any risk (someone else's) for profit (themselves and their shareholders). We cannot commercialize such technologies, while safeguards, like Section 526, can quite easily be removed by a particular national state, special interest group or coalition. This is where democracy is failing us.
choo44, many of us, including Ed, are trying to reduce our energy & eco footprints. Perhaps its not enough but we have to start somewhere.
A lot of people would use rapid (public) transit if it were available in more locales. Many European cities, smaller than Toronto or Vancouver have far superior transit to these cities. Yet recent mayor Ford wants to scuttle a new subway line. Opposition to Obama's rapid passenger trains is vehemently opposed by several Republican governors to make sure private autos remain a necessity.
Then again, plug in hybrids for work commutes, recharged overnight by energy collected from roof top solar units during a good number of days, is surely a start in the right direction.
Our taxes, in the form of subsidies to big oil and gas, is surely going the wrong way.
Fiat lux
2 years ago
Ideologies and economic
Ideologies and economic theories are also faith based pseudo religions and the vast majority of our economists are nothing more than priesthoods teaching and enforcing the Religion of the Almighty Money God who exists only as computer figures, for the benefit of a few aristocrats.
Now I expect wise comments from the "conservative" faithful, asking if I want a society without money ?
There's tremendous difference between money that represents something to ensure the wellbeing of people, and the present racket, where a special interest class is permitted to "create" money from the air to be used as weapons for taking dictatorial control of the world.
Ed Deak.
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
If You Believe In God...
"Dembicki's stunning essays describe the dismantling of once great democracies. Canada has now joined the tin-pot regimes where money and greed have infiltrated the highest levels of leadership. Alberta, hijacked by the petroleum oligarchs, has turned its back on a century of Canadian rationality and is lining up to liquidate its lands." Jeffrey J
Which says it about as well and succinctly as it can be. The wolves aren't just at the door. We have agreed with them, to allow them into the house and occupy it.(As part of the recent Northern Command Agreement with the US Military and the US government.)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1691
The country, arising from betrayal within our own parliamentary "democracy" institution, is in perilous danger in my view. While the defence of our borders and territory languish, and hinge upon the goodwill of The Empire that most threatens them, our military is in far off lands fighting imperial war with them. It is a travesty.
Even now, the final pieces of the legal agreements framework that flow from NAFTA and those which commit us to even deeper "continental integration" and shared right of access to all our natural resources, economic and military, and effectively thereby politically, are in place or being drafted. And the further we get down this road, the more and more perilous it is going to be to attempt to undo it.
The Empire, across the many lands over which it exercises, or at least "has had" effective hegemony, is under increasing threat of exclusion and being driven out. Everywhere about it, and within, is mounting instability. Its surety of access to such especially as oil, is forcing it back towards reliance on its finite own. It is already clearly casting about for new areas of hegemony and resource supply.
All the indicators are, to anyone paying attention, that we are it. I don't believe in a God, but only what people have the power and courage to do for themselves. If you do "believe", you might want to start praying to Him now.
This could get very messy.
Jerry
http://coyotetimesca.blogspot.com/
OwlRol
2 years ago
Jerry, good blogspot
Read the whole thing, a little long.
About a year before Mulroney implemented the Free Trade Agreement, the "Red Tory" and organic farmer, David Orchard, published a book chronicling U.S.-Canadian relations from the American Revolution until the 1980s, notably how the U.S. applied political and criminal tactics to make sure that Canada could never compete, but would always be subservient to the growing U.S. empire. He made many good points on why Canadians should have rejected the FTA.
Most Canadians agreed, but like today, the vote was split and Mulroney sailed up the middle with the FTA.
In second place at the Progressive Conservative leadership convention when Joe Clark stepped down, Orchard threw his support behind a potential leader on the condition that 2 things take place.
1. A blue ribbon committee be established to thoroughly examine both benefits and negatives of the FTA on Canada.
2. The PC would never join and be assimilated into the more extreme Reform party.
David Orchard kept his end of the bargain, but he was lied to and quickly betrayed on both counts by the man who is now our federal minister of defence. Interesting connections.
So why do the people of his Nova Scotia constituency keep voting for him, especially after the Afghan prisoner fiasco? Liars don't stop.
The other point is that, back then, people from both sides of the political spectrum, such as you and David, could rationally discuss and find common ground on such issues as our relationship with the U.S.A.
Even though Canadians would like to see it ongoing, this discourse has been disappearing quickly and I mostly blame S. Harper, as he muzzled his caucus, ignored the insufficiently right leaning press, silenced or dismissed a portion of his own bureaucratic and scientific staff, and is now seriously dividing the nation with PMO tactics such as the constant barrage of attack ads, even when no election was in sight. He makes Mulroney look like an angel.
Of course, its all smoke & mirrors as anyone from any side who might threaten big business interests is removed. Too bad David.
OwlRol
2 years ago
Oh yah, those planes
One could argue that heavy lift choppers and planes could serve non military purposes, such as when city bridges (now seismically upgraded to a magnitude of 7, rather than the much more powerful 9) go down on the west coast, sometime imminent, massive Cascadia earth quake.
5 or 6 expensive (true cost not entirely disclosed) F 35 stealth fighters, that require jet fuel refined in the deep south, regardless of the tar sands, are not true surveillance planes, but could be used to sink surfaced narco submarines, or god forbid, illegal refugee ships.
Harpo told us that the F35 fits our military's needs without saying what those needs are. As you point out, no opposition party has questioned that, only the cost.
But 20+ is cold war mentality. Greenland? Russians anyone? the U.S.? No use in Afghanistan, besides we're supposed to be mostly out of there soon. Our own people? Air show offs? (forget the Snowbirds).
In today's mode of warfare, these high tech, deadly toys are obsolete before they come off the assembly line. The smaller, much cheaper, far more fuel efficient, much more maneuverable, remote control planes will soon replace the F35s and their pilots. Billions down the drain.