Portside

It seems that because of its interest in corporate tax policy or trade policy, Google and others are forced to align with legislators who are fighting climate activism, like US senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma. Photograph: Axel Schmidt/Getty Images

According to oft-cited statistics, climate scientists are 95%-99% certain of climate change – about as certain as they are of the link between smoking and lung cancer. Nonetheless, an estimated 58% of US Republican congressmen claim to be unconvinced of it. This group, the so-called “climate denier caucus,” is a big part of the reason that meaningful climate activist legislation keeps getting shot down. And according to a recent report, some of America’s most popular companies are helping to fund the effort.

Forecast the Facts and Sum of Us, two sustainability oriented NGOs, recently released “#DisruptDenial,” a report outlining the corporate contributions to the 160 members of the climate denier caucus in Congress. According to them, these legislators have received $641m in campaign contributions from US companies, including $98m in 2014.

It isn’t hard to see why some corporations might want to support climate change denial. Companies involved in gas and oil, like Chevron – which contributed $1,262,463 – or ConocoPhillips – which contributed $754,251 – could have much to gain by delaying climate action. Others, like Goldman Sachs – which contributed $1,757,104 – might be concerned about the market effects of climate regulation.

Other contributing companies, however, are actively pursuing sustainability agendas. For example, General Electric (GE) – which donated $1,756,457 – announced plans last year to reduce the energy intensity of its operations by 50% by 2015. Similarly, Google, whose efforts to fight climate change have included a $1bn contribution to developing renewable electricity, contributed $699,195 to congressional climate deniers, including US senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, and US representative Darrell Issa, a Republican from California.

For some companies, these contributions may be working directly against their core business. Two major contributors, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway – which gave $1,189,612 to climate deniers in Congress – and Norfolk Southern Railway – which gave $1,032,610 – could both profit from stricter climate regulation. Rail, after all, produces the least emissions per freight mile of any form of surface transportation, and policies that push lower emissions would also, likely, improve their business. Both companies declined requests to be interviewed for this story.

Duplicity?

One criticism of the Disrupt Denial report lies in its methodology, which combines direct corporate contributions with contributions from individual corporate employees. However, Brant Olson, campaign director at Forecast the Facts, argues that individual contributions, while not under the direct control of corporations, may also not be completely independent. “The statistics show that, in the majority of cases, the individual gifts of a company’s employees are aligned with the overall political agenda of a firm – and with its overall giving,” he explains. “This may be, in part, because the majority of the individual contributions by employees of a company come from top executives.”

Another problem, Olson emphasizes, is that a large amount of corporate giving is not transparent. “These donations represent only the tip of the iceberg. Corporations and their employees also contribute through political organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), which are not required to disclose their contributors.”

And, again, involvement with lobbying organizations can create some strange political bedfellows. Google, for example, contributed to Alec because of what chairman Eric Schmidt referred to as political campaigns “unrelated” to climate. However, under increasing pressure from consumers and its own employees, the company withdrew its support. Speaking on the Diane Rehm show Monday, he said: “I think the consensus within the company was that that was some sort of mistake and so we’re trying to not do that in the future.”

Schultz said Google’s involvement with Alec went against its guiding principles. “Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place,” he explained on the show.

Another criticism from companies cited in the report is that Disrupt Denial lumps together corporate contributions with contributions from corporate political action committees (PACs), which pool contributions from large groups of donors. A General Electric spokesperson, in particular, was quick to note that the GE PAC’s “non-partisan, voluntary contributions were made by individual employees on issues they care about in their communities, including healthcare, transportation, energy, finance and climate policy”.

Olson argues that the distinction between corporations and their PACs is far thinner than GE suggests. “Corporate treasuries are legally prohibited from making political contributions, and PACs are the vehicle that they use,” he explains. “Technically speaking, these PACs represent voluntary gifts from a company’s employees. In practice, they are the political arm of a corporation.”

Many fingers, many pies

A better argument might be the one proffered by a Google spokesman, who pointed out the difficulty that his company faces in balancing its various interests. “We engage on a wide variety of public policy issues and we work with advocacy groups across the political spectrum,” he explained. “We’re never going to agree 100% with every organization on every issue.”

In other words, because of its interest in corporate tax policy or trade policy or other other issues, Google – as well as the many other companies that echoed this sentiment – are forced to align with legislators who are fighting climate activism.

Olson acknowledges the problem: “It’s understandable, but it shows the dysfunction of our political system. You have companies with strong, explicit policy commitments to fighting climate change who are forced to give millions to opponents of that agenda.”

Gretchen Goldman, a lead analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, offers a radical solution: disengagement from politics. Some companies, she notes, have chosen to completely decouple themselves from campaign contributions. Of course, by denying themselves political influence, companies that disengage also place themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

Another, less radical possibility lies in decoupling campaign support from specific policies. “Companies can publicly state that, while they support a group financially, they disagree with its stance on climate change,” Goldman explains. “This can undermine the legitimacy and power of these groups that fail to accept climate science. For example, when we analyzed public disclosures from companies, we found that, while the US Chamber of Commerce does not accept climate science, not a single company on its board reported agreeing with that position.”

Olson echoed this, noting that there’s a precedent for making this sort of linkage. “Last year, Intel responded to shareholder pressure by committing to review its political giving to make sure that it aligned with its corporate policies,” he said.

From the consumer end, Goldman points out, there are even more options. She suggests that consumers look at “all the actions that companies are taking” to determine if a company’s behaviors are acceptable. And if they aren’t, she suggests, direct consumer and shareholder action can have a significant impact on a company’s policies and political contributions. “Time and time again, shareholders and customers have signaled that climate denial is not okay,” she says. “They’ve pushed companies to pull out of Alec, the Heartland Institute and other groups that spread misinformation about climate science.”

[Bruce Watson is a New York-based writer who reports on finance, food and culture for the Guardian, Esquire, and DailyFinance. He tweets @Bruce1971]