Two bills that would allow the
United States to expand its fossil fuel infrastructure in the European Union
and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries have advanced to the
the Senate—and Democrats backing them have invoked “Russiagate” to push them
through.
One of those bills, the European
Energy Security and Diversification Act passed in the U.S. Senate
Foreign Relations Committee on December 11 and calls for $1 billion to go
toward pushing energy projects in the EU. Immediately preceding that, another
related bill called the Energy
Security Cooperation with Allied Partners in Europe Act also passed
through the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT),
a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and co-author of the European
Energy Security and Diversification Act, praised his bill’s passage through
committee.
“This is a piece of
legislation that seeks to redress what has been an asymmetry in the way in
which we try to combat Russia’s attempts to curry favor in the region with its
oil and gas,” Murphy, a frequent participant in
the cable news
circuit as a commentator on the “Russiagate” issue, said
in a press release. “And I think that this, frankly, is the best way
ultimately to hurt Putin where it matters. If we are able to help make
countries truly energy independent of Russia’s energy largesse, then it
effectuates so many U.S. national security goals in the region.”
But the Real News’ review of
lobbying disclosure forms by some of those lobbying for the bill, show that
they have business interests in Russia.
The European Energy Security
and Diversification Act has enjoyed the lobbying
support of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the influence
peddling voice of the oil and gas industry. API member companies include
BP, Chevron, Shell Oil and ExxonMobil—companies with deep oil and gas ties in
Russia. BP owns a 19.75% share of Rosneft, the Russian state-owned oil
production giant. And BP’s CEO, Bob Dudley, sits on Rosneft’s
Board of Directors. Exxon is a frequent
joint venture partner with Rosneft. Both Chevron and Shell Oil
also have extensive operations across the oil and gas supply chain in Russia,
with Shell acting
as a financier of the Nordstream 2 pipeline, the subject
of recent U.S. sanctions against Russia.
Despite these deep ties to
Russia by those lobbying for the bill, House Democrats and Republicans stirred
up Russiagate fears while they expressed their support for the legislation.
“Europe imports nearly 40% of
its natural gas from Russia,” U.S. Rep. Francis Rooney III (R-FL) said
on the House floor before the body voted on the legislation. “Some EU
countries source as much as 100% of their gas from Moscow, which has weaponized
its energy dominance in the region to coerce, intimidate and influence the
political decisions of countries that depend on it for their energy.”
“We saw again last weekend
with the summary of the Mueller report coming forward, just underscoring once
again, the attack that was made on our country by Russia,” said
U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA). “Russia is seeking…to create a wedge
with the greatest asset we have. That asset is the coalition we hae with our
European allies…One of the ways Russia is continuing to break up this western
coalition and cause great damage is not just attacks they had in the U.S., but
also wielding energy as a weapon to break up this great coalition we have.”
The bill calls for the United
States’ assistance if it is a “natural gas infrastructure, such as
interconnectors, storage facilities, liquefied natural gas import facilities”
or if it centers around “the improvement, rehabilitation, or construction of
natural gas, coal, or other electricity generation facilities to increase the
efficiency and reliability of electricity production.”
That assistance could include
“using the diplomatic and political influence and expertise of the Department
of State” to “resolve any inpendements” that may exist in getting an energy
project open for business. Put another way, the U.S. government could use
influence-peddling techniques to push a fossil fuels agenda throughout the
EU.
The bill further aims to
prioritize linking energy systems of multiple countries together in the region
and must be on the European Commission list as top priority projects for EU
countries. The European Commission recently listed 55 different gas projects on
its priority
list, which received criticism
from climate advocates.
Two environmental
groups, Food
& Water Watch and Friends
of the Earth, lobbied in opposition to the bill. Kate DeAngelis, a senior
international policy analyst for Friends of the Earth, told The Real News that
the group was attacked for its efforts.
“It was incredibly difficult
to lobby on the bill because of the widespread support from the Dems,” said
DeAngelis. “Most of the offices that were supportive or leaning toward
supporting didn’t respond to our request for meetings. We were even accused of
being pro-Russia. We explained that we were not pro-Russia, but that we are
anti-fossil fuels.”
U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) had
also attempted
to amend the words “including fossil fuel” out of the legislation
during committee deliberations on the legislation, but the amendment failed to
pass. He further attempted to pass an amendment
requiring that the energy the U.S. promotes within EU countries is
“non-fossil fuel based” and “truly renewable.” It also failed to get the votes
needed for passage.
Another bill, the Energy
Security Cooperation with Allied Partners in Europe Act, has also passed
through the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. It calls for the U.S.
government “to promote energy security in Europe by working with the European
Union” and “to develop liberalized energy markets that provide diversified
energy sources, suppliers, and routes.”
Once again, Russia was the
rationale behind support of the legislation and API, Chevron and Exxon lobbied in support
of it.
“Russia continues to use its
energy resources as a weapon to intimidate, influence and coerce our allies.
Freeing Europe from Russian energy dependence will strengthen both our allies
and our NATO alliance,” U.S. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the author of the
bill, said
in a press release after the bill passed through the Committee on
Foreign Relations. “This bill gives us an opportunity to supply Europe with an
alternative to Russian gas and increase Europe’s energy security.”
Barrasso took $10,000 in campaign
contributions from Chevron, $7,500 from API and $5,000 from ExxonMobil
during his successful 2018 re-election campaign cycle.
Despite these tough on Russia
sentiments, the same companies with a large business footprint in
Russia—ExxonMobil, Chevron and API—all
lobbied for the bill. ExxonMobil, beyond its Russia operations and
long-standing ties to the country, is also in the midst of building an LNG
export terminal called Golden
Pass LNG in Texas, a joint venture with Qatar Petroleum.
Friends of the Earth’s
DeAngelis said that at the end of the day, money talks in Congress—and in
Russia—despite the anti-Russia rhetoric.
“Exxon, BP, Chevron and API’s
involvement in this bill just demonstrate how fossil fuel interests have a hold
on much of the Congress,” she said. “They mask their demands in different ways,
but their goal is always to increase their profits at the expense of the
environment and communities around the world.”
Related Stories
01.
02.
03.
04.
05.
No comments:
Post a Comment