The Dernogalizer

August 5, 2009

Congressman Ed Markey’s Letter on Coal-Scandal

For the last three posts on the coal companies paying(by accident they claim) for forged letters opposing the House climate bll last month, see here(1), here(2), and here(3).  A few more things to add since piling on is so great!  If you like the picture in this post, check out the AVAAZ DC Action Factory post on the great demonstrations they’ve been doing to draw attention to this issue.  Media coverage has been done by New York Times, Washington Post, TPM, Grist, Business Green, and The Rachel Maddow Show.  Wonk Room has a post indicating that womens and senior groups were also impersonated in letters by the lobbying firms hired by big coal.

Finally, Congressmen Ed Markey has a great letter to ACCCE(the coal group responsible) that asks some pointed questions about their involvement in this scandal.  I’m posting that below.

August 5, 2009

Sent via facsimile and U.S. Mail

Mr. Stephen L. Miller

President and CEO

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity

333 John Carlyle Street

Suite 530

Alexandria, VA 22314

Dear Mr. Miller:

Recent news reports and other publicly available information indicate that the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (“ACCCE”) was the entity that hired Bonner & Associates to engage in “grasstops” efforts that resulted in fraudulent letters being sent to a number of Members of Congress prior to House consideration of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I am aware that ACCCE has issued a “Background Document” that seeks to address the matter, but frankly it raises as many questions as it answers. Most glaringly, ACCCE apparently learned of the twelve fraudulent letters on June 24, 2009 (two days before the House vote on the Waxman-Markey bill), but did not take any action to make the affected Congressional offices or the public aware of the situation until some time after ACCCE had known of Bonner & Associates’ actions. Press reports indicate that ACCCE may not have told the other affected offices that they too had received fraudulent letters until Monday, August 3, 2009.

The deliberate inaction prior to the House vote and the extended silence after the vote — some 40 days after ACCCE knew what had happened — raises serious concerns.

In order to enable us to understand the facts and circumstances relating to this matter, I ask you to respond to the following questions:

1. Describe the relationship between ACCCE and Hawthorn Group. How long has ACCCE or its predecessor organizations used the services of the Hawthorn Group? What services do they provide? How much does ACCCE pay Hawthorn Group on a monthly basis? Please provide a copy of all contracts between ACCCE and Hawthorn Group. To the best of your knowledge, is Hawthorn registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act?

2. The ACCCE background document that you have circulated on Capitol Hill states that ACCCE was aware that the Hawthorn Group had engaged Bonner & Associates to conduct “community outreach.” Where (by Congressional District) was Bonner & Associates hired to conduct this activity? Please provide a copy of all contracts between the Hawthorn Group and Bonner & Associates to perform work for or on behalf of ACCCE. Did the Hawthorn Group engage other “grasstops” or “grassroots” agents to conduct public or community-based outreach? If yes, please identify the other entities that were engaged and the areas (by Congressional District) in which they were hired to conduct “community outreach.”

3. The ACCCE background document also states that “a total of twelve falsified letters were sent by that firm [Bonner & Associates] to the offices of Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, Congressman Christopher Carney and Congressman Tom Perriello.”

a) Please provide a copy of each fraudulent letter sent to these and any other Congressional offices.

b) Explain in detail for each fraudulent letter i) the organization that purported to send the letter, ii) how the organization’s letterhead or logo was obtained and by whom, iii) whether the name as the signatory on the letter was invented or whether that person actually works for such organization, and iv) who forged the signature on the letter.

4. The ACCCE document states that Bonner & Associates’ internal process first identified the twelve fraudulent letters to Members of Congress. How many letters (fraudulent and otherwise) were sent altogether through the efforts of Bonner & Associates or Hawthorn Group on each day in the period between May 1 and June 26, 2009, breaking it down on a daily basis?

5. The letters to Rep. Perriello were from prominent civil rights groups. Did ACCCE ask the Hawthorn Group and/or Bonner & Associates to generate letters concerning the Waxman-Markey bill from civil rights groups? From veterans, religious or business groups? Are the other fraudulent letters to Members of Congress also from similar groups?

6. Were any of the twelve fraudulent letters or the general fact of any of their existence (such as “civil rights groups express concern about legislation”) shared with a) the members of ACCCE, b) the Hawthorn Group, or c) other “grasstops” or “grassroots” advocacy coalition members? Were these letters or the general fact of their existence discussed during any conference calls or on email distribution lists so that these fraudulent letters could have been used to leverage in a misleading way to enlist support from other civil rights or other organizations? Did ACCCE or its member companies or lobbyists make reference to any of the twelve fraudulent letters in meetings with any Member of Congress or their staff? Were these letters or the general fact of their existence provided to other firms or coalition members as part of a coordinated effort?

7. The ACCCE background document plainly states that your organization knew about the twelve fraudulent letters on June 24, 2009, two days before the House vote on Waxman-Markey, but chose to remain silent. When was the office of Reps. Perriello, Dahlkemper and Carney and any other Member who received fraudulent letters first notified that they had been sent fraudulent letters on the Waxman-Markey bill? Who made the contact?

8. The ACCCE background document indicates that ACCCE had decided to leave to others to notify the affected organizations and the Congressional offices of the fraudulent letters. Did ACCCE inform any person when these Members and organizations should be notified? Or when they should not be notified? Did ACCCE indicate that this information should be communicated in a prompt manner, in light of the upcoming vote? Or did ACCCE leave it to others to decide when was the best time to notify the affected Members and these organizations of the fraudulent letters? Did ACCCE make any inquiry whether the targeted Members had been notified of the fraudulent letters prior to the House vote on final passage on the Waxman-Markey bill, which came well after the working day was over on June 26, 2009?

9. Between the time on June 24, when ACCCE first learned of the fraudulent letters, to the time of final passage by the House of the Waxman-Markey bill on June 26, how many calls did ACCCE, acting through itself or the Hawthorn Group or Bonner & Associates or other contractors, arrange or cause or prompt to be made to Members of the U.S. House of Representatives? Did the script for any of these phone bank efforts make reference, either in specific or general terms, to the existence of these fraudulent letters? For the purposes of answering this question, identify any such script if it included any reference to civil rights groups or other group designations that would describe any of the twelve organizations identified on the fraudulent letters. Please supply a copy of any such script.

10. It is evident that ACCCE uses many mechanisms to communicate its views to the public and policymakers. Between June 24 and August 3, 2009, was the fact that these (fraudulent) letters had been sent to Congress used in any broadcast ads, direct mail, “push polls,” online ads, blog posts, email outreach, viral marketing campaigns, “street teams,” or any other new media? If yes, please identify the time and place of each instance and provide a copy or sample of the relevant material.

Given the seriousness of this matter, I hope this matter has your prompt and full attention. Please respond to these questions by August 13, 2009. If you have any questions, please contact Gerard J. Waldron or Michael Goo with the Select Committee staff.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Markey

Chair

Greenpeace wins Kimberly-Clark Campaign

Filed under: environment — Matt Dernoga @ 6:55 pm
Tags: ,

I’ve seen Greenpeace running this campaign for quite a few years.  Basically the tissues that the large company Kimberly-Clark has been making come from ancient boreal forest, and it’s a contributor to deforestation, which is a major aspect of the global warming problem.  Below is Greenpeace’s press release, and here is a great look back at their campaign on their site.  Congrats Greenpeace!

Kimberly-Clark Sets the Bar Higher for Tissue Products with Stronger Global Forest Policy

Greenpeace Ends Its “Kleercut” Campaign and Applauds the Company’s Sustainability Efforts

Washington — Aug. 5, 2009 — Kimberly-Clark Corporation, the maker of Kleenex, Scott and Cottonelle brands, today announced stronger fiber sourcing standards that will increase conservation of forests globally and will make the company a leader for sustainably produced tissue products. Greenpeace, which worked with Kimberly-Clark on its revised standards, announced that it will end its “Kleercut” campaign, which focused on the company and its brands.

“We are committed to using environmentally responsible wood fiber and today’s announcement enhances our industry-leading practices in this area,” said Suhas Apte, Kimberly-Clark Vice President of Environment, Energy, Safety, Quality and Sustainability. “It is our belief that certified primary wood fiber and recycled fiber can both be used in an environmentally responsible way and can provide the product performance that customers and consumers expect from our well-known tissue brands. We commend Greenpeace for helping us develop more sustainable standards.”

Kimberly-Clark has set a goal of obtaining 100 percent of the company’s wood fiber for tissue products, including the Kleenex brand, from environmentally responsible sources. The revised standards will enhance the protection of Endangered Forests and increase the use of both Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified fiber and recycled fiber.  By the end of 2011, Kimberly-Clark will ensure that 40 percent of its North American tissue fiber – representing an estimated 600,000 tonnes – is either recycled or FSC certified, an increase of more than 70 percent over 2007 levels.

“Today, ancient forests like the Boreal Forest have won,” said Richard Brooks, Greenpeace Canada Forest Campaign Coordinator. “This new relationship between Kimberly-Clark and Greenpeace will promote forest conservation, responsible forest management, and recycled fiber as far and wide as possible.”

Also by the end of 2011, Kimberly-Clark will eliminate the purchase of any fiber from the Canadian Boreal Forest that is not FSC certified. This forest is North America’s largest old growth forest, providing habitat for threatened wildlife such as woodland caribou and a sanctuary for more than one billion migratory birds. It is also the largest terrestrial storehouse of carbon on the planet, storing the equivalent of 27 years worth of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Furthermore, the revised standards reinforce Kimberly-Clark’s long-standing ban on use of wood fiber from illegal sources; adds a preference for post-consumer recycled fiber; and supports expansion of recycling initiatives and the identification, mapping and protection of areas that have the potential to be designated as Endangered or High Conservation Value forests.

“These revised standards are proof that when responsible companies and Greenpeace come together, the results can be good for business and great for the planet,” said Scott Paul, Greenpeace USA Forest Campaign Director. “Kimberly-Clark’s efforts are a challenge to its competitors. I hope other companies pay close attention.”

About Kimberly-Clark
Kimberly-Clark and its well-known global brands are an indispensable part of life for people in more than 150 countries.  Every day, 1.3 billion people – nearly a quarter of the world’s population – trust K-C brands and the solutions they provide to enhance their health, hygiene and well-being.  With brands such as Kleenex, Scott, Huggies, Pull-Ups, Kotex and Depend, Kimberly-Clark holds No. 1 or No. 2 share positions in more than 80 countries.  To keep up with the latest K-C news and to learn more about the company’s 137-year history of innovation, visit
www.kimberly-clark.com.
About Greenpeace

Greenpeace is the leading independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful direct action and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and to promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.

# # #

CONTACTS:

Kay Jackson, Kimberly-Clark, 817-658-3004 (cell) ; kay.jackson@kcc.com

Daniel Kessler, Greenpeace USA, 510-501-1779 (cell); dkessler@greenpeace.org

Richard Brooks, Greenpeace Canada, 416-573-7209; richard.brooks@greenpeace.org

Notes to the Editor:
The full text of Kimberly-Clark’s Fiber Procurement Annex can be found at
www.kcc.com

The Forest Stewardship Council third party certifies that forests are responsibly managed. Certified products bear the FSC logo and can be traced back to specific forest areas. For more information, please visit www.fsc.org.

As a result of Kimberly-Clark’s announcement, Greenpeace will end its “Kleercut” campaign and update its website to publicly recognize Kimberly-Clark’s positive actions. More information can be found at www.greenpeace.org/kleercut

Updates on International Climate Negotiations Landscape

Filed under: Energy/Climate — Matt Dernoga @ 6:36 pm
Tags: , ,

There have been a few good developments and newsworthy articles of recent about the ongoing process of more countries indicating support for a global treaty.  We’re also given a better idea of who stands where.  Although all plans and targets(including our own) need to be far stronger, just having a legitimate treaty to strengthen is important as well.

South Korea has a carbon reduction plan: “South Korea pledged for the first time on Tuesday to set a 2020 emissions reduction target, as the OECD’s fastest-growing carbon polluter voluntarily joined richer nations in setting hard goals to roll back climate change.”

Mexico will bring a plan to Copenhagen:  “Mexico aims to put a detailed offer to cut the growth of its own greenhouse gas emissions on the negotiating table at global climate change talks in Copenhagen this year, a senior environmental policymaker said.  ”If Mexico can bring a plan for cuts through 2020 to the table with a detailed description of what will be mitigated it would set a positive precedent for the other big emerging economies,” said Adrian Fernandez, the president of the National Ecology Institute, in an interview on Monday.

India joining the treaty is not dead in the water: “Yet there just might be an alternate narrative unfolding here that will play out in the next four months. It could alter the predictable developed-versus-developing-nation script. By several accounts, the talks in Gurgaon before Mr. Ramesh’s turn in front of the cameras were much more cordial and constructive than his public statements have implied and the media’s reaction would suggest.”

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.