More
- Classifieds
- Cars
- Deals
- Real Estate
- Rentals
- Photos
- Blogs

Health & Science

Alliance between natural gas industry, environmental groups fractures

By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson,February 19, 2012

(Page 2 of 2)

American Lung Association spokeswoman Carrie Martin said of Chesapeake, “We appreciate their support over several years,” adding that the group backs “increased use of natural gas as a transitional fuel for the production of electricity, as a cleaner alternative to biomass, coal and other fossil fuels.” She noted that the association recently urged the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt stronger limits on harmful emissions from gas wells, processing plants, pipelines and storage units.

At least one group that seriously considered McClendon’s offer, the NRDC, decided in the end that his support would constitute a conflict of interest. Half a dozen senior NRDC leaders and energy staffers — including John Adams, its founding director — traveled to Chesapeake’s Oklahoma headquarters in early 2008 to have what NRDC spokeswoman Jenny Powers described as “a serious and frank conversation about fracking” and to discuss a contribution to its “Move America Beyond Coal” campaign.

In a letter to the NRDC’s board of trustees earlier this month, President Frances Beinecke wrote that the group does not accept corporate donations and “decided that it would be unwise to accept his personal contribution.”

Groups such as the Center for Clean Air Policy have specifically invited oil and gas companies to contribute to their efforts to devise a compromise on climate change. The group’s president, Ned Helme, said the firms are “part of a much larger group” that includes representatives from government agencies and nonprofits.

“All the players are at the table,” Helme said. “You’re really after how everyone’s second choices might line up.”

The money that natural gas interests have given environmental and public-health groups may help account for why it has gained popularity among American voters, while the coal industry’s public relations campaign has not shifted public attitudes. According to the Schott Solar Barometer Survey, which asked voters what forms of energy they would support if they were in charge of U.S. energy policy, natural gas jumped from 12 to 21 percent between 2009 and 2011 and coal rose from 2 to 3 percent. Natural gas surpassed wind in the survey and is second only to solar.

But with natural gas money off the table, several environmental groups are tapping other donors to back their efforts on shutting down coal-fired power plants in the United States. Last July, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) gave the Sierra Club a personal $50 million contribution to support its “Beyond Coal” campaign for four years.

A solar company, SunRun, gave money to the Sierra Club to help defeat a statewide proposition that would have rolled back targets under the California renewable portfolio standards that favor wind and solar.

Earlier this month, former vice president Al Gore brought current and potential donors on an eight-day trip to Antarctica. They traveled on a small Lindblad cruise boat with climate experts such as James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and oceanographer Sylvia Earle. Gore hopes to raise money for his group, the Climate Reality Project, which will launch a new campaign targeting the coal industry.

“Despite what the coal industry has spent decades and hundreds of millions of dollars telling people, coal is neither clean nor cheap nor the right fuel for the future,” Maggie Fox, the group’s president and chief executive, said in a statement. “This spring, the Climate Reality Project will be adding our voice to the growing chorus speaking the truth about the exorbitant price we pay for our addiction to coal.”

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Continued1

2