The American Petroleum Institute is objecting, and the major oil companies potentially on the hook are among the biggest of the big lobbying powers in Washington: BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. They will “hide behind the independent oil companies,” predicts Erich Pica, an analyst for Friends of the Earth, “and threw in everything but the kitchen sink.”

These five companies spent  a combined $59.4 billion in lobbying in 2008 alone, according to figures from the nonpartisan OpenSecrets.org, these five companies have plenty of money to throw in. Several prominent former Democrat legislators and staff members lobbied on behalf of these companies in 2008 — including former Louisiana Sen. John Breaux (Shell), former Hill staffer Holly Bode (Exxon), who previously worked for Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.); and former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus Paul Brathwaite (BP).

But Big Oil’s ability to prevent the plugging of this loophole could be waning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) targeted royalty relief in her “first 100 days” agenda when Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. The House approved a rollback, but it narrowly failed to gain Senate approval. Since then, pro-oil Republican Sen.Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Wayne Allard of Colorado have been replaced by green Democrats, Tom and Mark Udall, respectively. Pencil in Minnesota’s DFL Senator-in-waiting Al Franken in place of former GOP Sen. Norm Coleman, and as Daniel Weiss of the Center for American put it, ”Big oil faces an uphill climb.”

Overall, says the group’s president Gene Karpinski in a press release, “in 2008, Congress went in the wrong direction” — that is, away from reducing our country’s dependence on oil.

This year’s scorecard looks at 11 Senate votes and 13 House votes related to energy and environmental policies. Sixty-seven members of the House received a perfect rating, while 27 senators received a comparable score.  Some 70 members of the House and two senators received a zero rating.

The press release mentions “a vocal minority” in Congress, “led by Minority Leaders Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and John Boehner (R-Oh), [who] used every trick in the book to help their allies in Big Oil and Big Coal.” The League of Conservation Voters says this vocal minority has led to billions of dollars in tax subsidies for oil companies.

Meanwhile, the league praised other Republicans, including Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), for introducing and supporting legislation to fight climate change and improve the environment and public health.

View the complete scorecard.

www.willyoujoinus.com

While walking around Washington, it’s hard to miss all the large Chevron ads. They are at bus stops and in metro stations, and they feature “everyday people” promising to conserve energy. “I will carpool to work,” one person in the ad says. “I will take the golf clubs out of the trunk,” promises another. “I will leave the car at home more,” pledges a third.

And, in each one, Chevron vows it will conserve energy, too.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Chevron launched its “I will” campaign last month in Washington, Houston and cities throughout California. The new ads continue the oil company’s “Power of Human Energy” ad campaign that began about a year ago. Through TV spots, print ads, billboards and a website called Will You Join Us, Chevron says it seeks to raise awareness about energy conservation and efficiency.

But exactly how green can an oil company claim to be? And will consumers buy its claims?

Chevron, America’s second largest oil company, with profits of $18.7 billion last year, isn’t the only oil producer spending millions to burnish its image. Like other big oil companies, it has switched gears from ignoring or denying climate change to announcing it role in combating this problem, oil experts say.

For example, if you’ve turned on the TV lately, you’ve probably seen a commercial like this from ExxonMobil:

Exxon, the country’s biggest oil company, with profits last year of $39.5 billion, recently launched its environmental-themed ad campaign. BP was perhaps ahead of this curve — for British Petroleum started rebranding itself as “Beyond Petroleum” in 2000.

Some experts say Chevron and all the other oil companies will have to work a lot harder to gain the trust of consumers, who are finally getting some relief at the pumps after gasoline prices hit $4 a gallon this summer. They say the companies will have to transform their actions, not just their images.

Chevron says it differs from the other oil companies because it invests in clean technologies and fuel efficiency. Those who study the oil industry assert that the company’s investment is minor when compared to its large profits.

www.willyoujoinus.com

But Kimberly Beman the Chevron spokeswoman said, “Between 2007 and 2009, Chevron has projected spending of more than $2.5 billion for alternatives, renewables and energy-efficiency services.” *

Beman also pointed out that, since 2000, Chevron Energy Solutions, a Chevron subsidiary that focuses on environmental issues, has developed hundreds of projects in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

“CES projects will help to reduce over a billion dollars in energy costs for customers,” Beman told The Washington Independent.

But a billion dollars spent over an unspecified period of time doesn’t exactly seem like a lot of money for a company that made a record $18.7 billion in profits last year alone.

Steve Kretzmann, director of the nonpartisan organization Oil Change International, said that Chevron’s priority is cleaning up its image — and that speaks volumes about its credibility on conservation. “Chevron spends millions and millions on these ad campaigns,” said Kretzmann, “and then doesn’t devote hardly any amount of money to invest in renewable-energy technologies that could make a huge difference.”

Chevron spent $15 million last year on advertising to promote it’s green policies, according to Grist. This seems to be the norm among the big oil companies.

Exxon, for example, spent only 1 percent of its record-breaking annual profit last year on alternative energy, reports ABC News.

www.willyoujoinus.com

But Chevron spokeswoman Beman says her company isn’t like the other oil companies. “We feel we differentiate ourselves from our competitors to say conservation is key to our [mission],” she said. “I think it’s just an overall call to action that all of us are responsible. Chevron is taking the lead in opening this discussion.”Kalle Lasn, editor-in-chief of Adbusters Magazine, a non-profit that studies consumerism, finds this claim surprising. Until recently, he says, oil companies like Chevron have been “instrumental in delaying the debate we needed to have on climate change.”

“For years,” Lasn said, “[they were] trying to deny climate change and keep the business-as-usual scenario going.” James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, agrees with Lasn. In June, he testified before Congress:

Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer.

“Then, just a few short years ago” Lasn said, “when it became quite obvious that they couldn’t deny climate change any longer, one by one they jumped on this [PR] bandwagon…and started painting themselves as the good guys.”

That’s why almost all big oil companies now have ads greenwashing themselves, Lasn said. It started with BP — originally British Petroleum — changing its logo in 2000 to a sun and referring to itself as “Beyond Petroleum.” BP talks about this global branding strategy on its website.

Now, even ExxonMobil — a company known to have given millions of dollars to groups denying global warming — has launched green ads.Are these costly PR campaigns working?

Lasn says they have potential. “A lot of people are totally hoodwinked by this,” he said. “There are millions of people out there who actually do fall for it, who are not aware of some of the history of these big oil companies.”

That’s what Chevron is counting on, Lasn says.

Green advertising can help companies shape their brand, says Lasn, because even large corporations care about public perception.

“[Oil companies] know the next time there is a financial crunch, like now, or if climate change veers out of control even more than it already has, then their survival depends on how the public perceives them,” he said.

TerraChoice, an environmental marketing firm that conducts advertising research, agrees that green advertising can be effective. Media consultant Kate Rusnak says consumers are happy to see so many businesses moving in a more sustainable direction. As a result, she said, “there has certainly been a huge rise in the amount of green advertising.” This could be why even oil companies are jumping on the bandwagon.

Still, not everyone says Chevron is winning on the public-perception front. “I don’t think that [this ad campaign] is particularly effective for consumers,” said Kretzmann of Oil Change International. “The industry knows it has an image problem.”

*Note: This article originally did not say how much Chevron spends on its alternative energy projects. A quote from the oil company detailing its projected budgets was added to the piece after posting.

ABC spokeswoman Julie Hoover told the Guardian that the ad was too “controversial” to run during network-sponsored programs.

The commercial calls for ending America’s dependence on foreign oil by turning to wind power and solar power.

It also says that “big oil spends hundreds of millions to block clean energy” through lobbying and advertising. Apparently that was the part ABC deemed controversial.

The ad, titled “Repower America,” was supposed to run the night of the first presidential debate.

In a statement released last week, the CEO of Gore’s group, Cathy Zoi, said, “Did you notice the ads after last night’s presidential debate? ABC had Chevron. CBS had Exxon. CNN had the coal lobby. But you know what happened last week? ABC refused to run our Repower America ad — the ad that takes on this same oil and coal lobby.”

During the presidential debates, both candidates have said they support alternative energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Even President George W. Bush has talked about that. Yet, somehow, it’s controversial when an environmental advocacy group says it?

Watch the commercial for yourself:

My friend Kriston Capps tips me to an interesting look by The Associated Press at whether Nigeria’s violence-plagued oil sector foreshadows oil development in Iraq. Since I don’t want to run afoul of The AP’s infamous anti-blogger guidelines, I’m going to have to ask you to follow the link and trust my paraphrasing.

This is the lay of the land: Nigeria has a massive amount of oil; a weak central government; unequal distribution of its oil wealth (or at least the perception of such) is an accelerant of violence, and the presence of thug-ish oil corporations are an accelerant of the unequal distribution of its oil wealth. (The piece doesn’t really come out and say that, but it’s fairly clear.) Sound like any country we might be occupying?

The Iraqi government is fumbling through its own round of negotiation with petro-giants, despite little being settled in terms of oil’s relationship to sectarianism. There’s one quote from The AP article that seems particularly apt when applied to Iraq, so the wire service can sue me:

“Oil companies can negotiate with the central government, but if the local government and local people are not happy, the oil companies are not going to be able to do what they want to do,” said Amy Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University’s James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

For years, the oil pipelines and the Bayji refinery in the north have been frequent targets of insurgents. Nearly every political party has a militia. All it takes is a few bombs, a few hostages and a few sprays of gunfire by a party that feels, uh, disrespected at either the national or the local level to upset an extremely delicate process.

Take that one step further: any oil company that’s going to operate in Iraq is going to hire a private security company. Probably not Blackwater, but think Triple Canopy or DynCorp or someone like that. These guys do not take lightly to being shot at, and they are extremely aggressive in protection of their clients (to put it neutrally).

In short, they’re perfect insurgent targets. Not only are they symbols of unaccountable foreign interference, but they overreact almost by the terms of their hire.

It would take a minimum of effort to set off a vicious circle of petro-insurgent (new term?) chaos.

President George W. Bush announced today that he will release oil from the country’s emergency reserves in the wake of Hurricane Gustav. The reason? Because an oil company asked, of course.

From Reuters:

“Last night we got a request from a company doing business here in Louisiana and we met that request,” Bush told reporters, referring to a request by Citgo Petroleum Corp, which is owned by the Venezuelan state oil company.

“Oil was released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and we will continue to do that upon request by companies,” Bush said after being briefed on recovery efforts in Louisiana.

For months, House Democrats have been calling (to no avail) on the Bush administration to tap part of the petroleum reserves to ease fuel prices at the pump. Following Wednesday’s announcement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had some choice words for a president more receptive to oil companies than to Congress:

By ignoring the needs of consumers but responding to the request of oil companies, it is clear that the Bush-Cheney-McCain energy decisions are made with only one thing in mind — Big Oil.

Not that Pelosi’s plan to use the U.S. emergency cache is anything but a band-aid on a larger problem. But GOP criticism that the resource should be saved for emergencies only rings hollow considering that scores of Republican have spent the last month in Washington screaming from the rafters about the dire need to address the issue with an offshore drilling vote.

What do you call a debate in which neither side has a leg to stand on?