Mixed Corporate Messages in Climate Legislation: Parallels and Divergences in Energy Company Public Statements and Political Activities

Abstract

Corporate influence has been widely blamed as a driving factor behind difficulties passing U.S. climate legislation and compromises in the more seriously-considered bills. This thesis will examine corporate public statements, lobbying activities, and campaign contributions as various forms of political influence, and seek to identify parallels and inconsistencies between these policy drivers. In particular, the analysis will aim to draw conclusions about how corporate lobbying activities compare to public relations statements on climate change. As detailed lobbying disclosure information is not publicly available, an analysis of campaign contribution patterns serves as the basis for inferring industry lobbying positions on climate legislation from the 109th through 111th Congresses. While a few energy companies made public statements in favor of binding climate legislation, most committed themselves only to vague statements of environmental stewardship without advocating for specific policy solutions. Statements of overt opposition to climate legislation by industry officials in the press and testimony further reveal internal contradictions within these corporations. The examination of lobbying behavior, using campaign contributions as a proxy for lobbying goals, demonstrates corporate reluctance to back stated concern for climate change with support for legislation, especially bills with more significant targets. Oil companies in particular exhibited the greatest bias, most notably surrounding the only Congressional vote on a stand-alone climate bill. This could be due to the likelihood that, unlike the other industries examined, oil industry GHG emissions are likely to increase rather than decrease with fuel source diversification. These findings could be greatly supplemented and illuminated through more thorough lobbying disclosure requirements. While there are significant parallels in campaign contribution and lobbying patterns, as examined in the literature scoping, the proxy use has limitations. Disclosure of lobbying positions and contacted representatives would eliminate the need for this intermediate step, and encourage more transparent corporate positioning regarding climate change and other legislative issues.