Oiling The Machine: Fossil Fuel Dollars Funneled into the U.S. Political Process

Executive Summary

Oil, coal, gas and auto industry interests have funnelled substantial
funds into U.S. federal elections since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

During that same time the Clinton Administration has failed to reduce
U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the burning of
fossil fuels, and has so-far failed to support strong international targets
for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. At the Rio Summit it was agreed to
stabilize greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000 at 1990 levels.
Instead, greenhouse gas emissions are forecast to rise by 13% by the year
2000 and escalate further post-2000.

The Clinton Administration does not appear to even be discussing
CO₂ emissions reductions targets. Without a position on a
reduction target the President and Vice President's concern for climate
change is empty rhetoric. Supporting early action by industrialized nations
is essential to prevent dangerous climate change.

Around 98% of US CO₂ emissions come from the combustion of
coal, oil and gas; with oil accounting for over 40%, coal 35% and natural
gas 22% of energy related emissions. The United States alone produces about
a quarter of global CO₂ emissions.

This report assesses the:

• contributions made by major mulitnational oil, coal and auto companies based in the United States to Congress
  
  
• comparison of funding to the Democrats and Republicans
  
  
• sectoral funding (oil and gas, mining and automotive) to the members of three key Senate committees: Energy and Natural Resouces, Environment and Public Works, and Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Source data was supplied by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP)

By failing exert leadership on this issue, the Clinton administration has
bowed to the Republican-controlled Senate, playing directly to the
industry-promoted agenda to derail international climate control agreements.

On June 12, 1997, the Republican-dominated Senate adopted, by a vote of
95 to zero, Resolution 98, recommending that the United States should not
sign a international agreement unless it contains specific new commitments
for developing countries. This Resolution is inconsistent with the Berlin
Mandate, agreed by the U.S. government, upon which new agreements must be based

Conclusions: Key Companies

Oil and Gas Sector Total

Oil and gas interests have donated $ 53.4 million since 1991 to
candidates and their parties. $20.8 million was donated in the 1995/6
period alone of which 77% went to the Republicans.

Oil Companies

Eight major oil companies, together with the Petroleum Marketers
Association, donated $12.5 million to Congressional candidates and the
parties in the last 6 years; 75% of this donation went to Republicans.

Atlantic Richfield (ARCO), Chevron, Exxon and Amoco alone gave more than
a million dollars each during this period, with ARCO topping the league
table with $3.4 million in donations. Enron, a natural gas company, also
gave over $1million.

Altogether these these fossil fuel producers gave over 70% of their
contributions to Republicans.

The Republicans received a total of $9.3 million from the oil companies
and their marketers, and the Democrats received a total of $3.2 million.

These figures include PAC (Political Action Committee) donations which
are given to individual candidates plus soft donations which are given to
the two political parties.

Coal Companies

Two international coal companies alone - Cyprus Amax and Peabody - plus
the National Mining Association (replacing National Coal Association in the
earlier years) gave a total of $1.3 million; 80% of this total went to the
Republican Party and their candidates.

Automakers

The Big Three automakers (Chrysler, Ford and General Motors) gave $3.2
million in donations; together with a major donation from the National Auto
Dealers Association of $5.9 million gives a total of $9.1 million.

65% of this total went to Republicans. 72% of the National Auto Dealers
Association contribution went to Republicans ($4.3 million).

Key Senate Committees

Greenpeace evaluated sectoral donations to members of three Senate
committees: Energy and Natural Resources, Environment and Public Works, and
Commerce, Science and Transportation. These three committees play a key
role in climate policy issues. Committee membership comprises 50 Senators,
taking into account duplication.

Oil, mining and transportation interests have donated $ 11.7 million
dollars to the current Senators from these three committees between 1992 -
1996. This group of 50 Senators represents half of the Senate. 77% of those
donations went to Republican senators.

Oil and gas contributions made up $7.8 million, or two-thirds of the
total, of which 80% went to Republican Senators.

Eight Senators received their highest donation from the oil and gas
sector, all are Republican Senators: Nickles (Oklahoma), Thomas (Wyoming),
Burns (Montana), Murkowski (Alaska), Inhofe (Oklahoma), Kempthorne (Idaho),
Allard (Colorado), and Bailey Hutchison (Texas). Senator Murkowski is the
Chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Nineteen Senators (38%) had a donation from oil and gas companies within
their top three donations, only two of those were Democrats.

The Republican senators received over 70% of total donations in each of
the three Committees.

Oil and Gas Sectoral Totals

The Oil and Gas sector includes production, marketing and downstream
activities, including companies involved in refining, distribution and
transmission.

$53.4 million dollars have been give in donations by this sector since
1991. In the 1995/6 period the total donation amounted to $20.8 million of
which 77% went to Republicans.

Mining industries have given approximately $6.7 million in donations
since 1991. This total also includes metal mining, non-metal mining and
mining service industries. In 1993/4 around half of the money came from
coal mine operators.

Hard donations include both PAC (Political Action Committee) donations
to individual candidates and individual hard donations (over $200); soft
donations are those monies going to political parties.

Major Oil and Gas Companies

These companies represent the 'seven sister' major multinational oil
companies. Also included is Atlantic Richfield company - ARCO - which tops
the league table of politican contributions from oil companies with
donations of $3.5 million since 1991.

* Petroleum Marketing Association.

Figures include the hard donations through the Political Action Committee (PAC) and soft donations to political parties.

The Oil Agenda

All of these oil companies are members of the Global Climate Coalition
with the exception of BP. However BP and the other seven oil companies are
members of the American Petroleum Institute, one of the sponsors of the
'Global Climate Information Project' the lobby group currently running a $13
million advertising campaign intended to derail agreement at the Climate
Summit in Kyoto.

In an aggressive campaign started mid-1997 these groups contend that
tougher climate controls for industrialised countries are unfair, and that
developing countries are being let off the hook.

On June 12, 1997, the Republican-dominated Senate adopted, by a vote of
95 to zero, Resolution 98, recommending that the United States should not
sign a international agreement unless it contains specific new commitments
for developing countries. This Resolution is inconsistent with the Berlin
Mandate, agreed by the U.S. government, upon which new agreements must be
based.

The politics of the oil industry are blatant. The Head of the Global
Climate Coalition has been reported recently admitting that requiring new
commitments for developing countries could be a treaty killer. Exxon
Chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond, warned developing countries on Oct 13, 1997,
that supporting tougher climate controls could strangle economic growth - a
major concern for developing countries.

Texaco, Mobil and Exxon, along with Australian fossil fuel company, BHP
(Broken Hills Propriety Ltd) have also put funding into a controversial
economic modelling exercise by the Australian government, currently being
used to justify Australia's obstructive position in climate treaty
negotiations. BHP is an Australian company with major assets in coal and
oil; it is active in the current U.S. industry anti-climate advertising
campaign.

For the entire report, visit Greenpeace's website.

• 107 Energy