Menu
Menu
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
To mop up what they could have in US-Turkish relations, they would argue that the preference Israel has displayed towards Russian influence rather than Turkish influence was curious given Turkey's status within NATO. This shows how complicated regional alliances and geopolitical preferences are. This highlights the need for prudent diplomacy and the natural balance of power that has evolved. It is yet to be seen how long Russian bases in Syria will last. Russia has taken steps to remove some of its assets, and it will be determined how long it will keep military bases through trade talks with Syria's new leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Israel's lobbying efforts should be weighed against broader US geopolitical objectives in the region. While American suspicion of Russian intervention in Syria has always been present, Israel's position could have implications for American strategy, especially under the current administration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To mop up what they could have in US-Turkish relations, they would argue that the preference Israel has displayed towards Russian influence rather than Turkish influence was curious given Turkey's status within NATO. This shows how complicated regional alliances and geopolitical preferences are. This highlights the need for prudent diplomacy and the natural balance of power that has evolved. It is yet to be seen how long Russian bases in Syria will last. Russia has taken steps to remove some of its assets, and it will be determined how long it will keep military bases through trade talks with Syria's new leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The Russian presence ties together the balance of power in the region. Keeping that balance of power is of utmost importance to ensure that any one actor, especially Turkiye, does not get to exert excessive power in the region. To contain jihadists within Syria, Israel seeks to keep<\/a> Russia's presence felt in Syria to counter Islamist insurgency threats to Israel. This strategy is assumed to be very useful in keeping the security of Israel intact.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel's lobbying efforts should be weighed against broader US geopolitical objectives in the region. While American suspicion of Russian intervention in Syria has always been present, Israel's position could have implications for American strategy, especially under the current administration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To mop up what they could have in US-Turkish relations, they would argue that the preference Israel has displayed towards Russian influence rather than Turkish influence was curious given Turkey's status within NATO. This shows how complicated regional alliances and geopolitical preferences are. This highlights the need for prudent diplomacy and the natural balance of power that has evolved. It is yet to be seen how long Russian bases in Syria will last. Russia has taken steps to remove some of its assets, and it will be determined how long it will keep military bases through trade talks with Syria's new leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The Russian presence ties together the balance of power in the region. Keeping that balance of power is of utmost importance to ensure that any one actor, especially Turkiye, does not get to exert excessive power in the region. To contain jihadists within Syria, Israel seeks to keep<\/a> Russia's presence felt in Syria to counter Islamist insurgency threats to Israel. This strategy is assumed to be very useful in keeping the security of Israel intact.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel's lobbying efforts should be weighed against broader US geopolitical objectives in the region. While American suspicion of Russian intervention in Syria has always been present, Israel's position could have implications for American strategy, especially under the current administration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To mop up what they could have in US-Turkish relations, they would argue that the preference Israel has displayed towards Russian influence rather than Turkish influence was curious given Turkey's status within NATO. This shows how complicated regional alliances and geopolitical preferences are. This highlights the need for prudent diplomacy and the natural balance of power that has evolved. It is yet to be seen how long Russian bases in Syria will last. Russia has taken steps to remove some of its assets, and it will be determined how long it will keep military bases through trade talks with Syria's new leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Israel feels that a weak and disorganized Syria is preferable to one that is a well-organized state governed by Islamist extremists. This development lessens the possibility that Syria may be turned into a launching pad for attacks against Israel, as well as prevents any single state from emerging as the dominant power in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Russian presence ties together the balance of power in the region. Keeping that balance of power is of utmost importance to ensure that any one actor, especially Turkiye, does not get to exert excessive power in the region. To contain jihadists within Syria, Israel seeks to keep<\/a> Russia's presence felt in Syria to counter Islamist insurgency threats to Israel. This strategy is assumed to be very useful in keeping the security of Israel intact.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel's lobbying efforts should be weighed against broader US geopolitical objectives in the region. While American suspicion of Russian intervention in Syria has always been present, Israel's position could have implications for American strategy, especially under the current administration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To mop up what they could have in US-Turkish relations, they would argue that the preference Israel has displayed towards Russian influence rather than Turkish influence was curious given Turkey's status within NATO. This shows how complicated regional alliances and geopolitical preferences are. This highlights the need for prudent diplomacy and the natural balance of power that has evolved. It is yet to be seen how long Russian bases in Syria will last. Russia has taken steps to remove some of its assets, and it will be determined how long it will keep military bases through trade talks with Syria's new leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Support of Turkiye is a real danger, as it is believed an Islamist group may find its way to the borders of Israel after being supported by a very powerful Turkiye. It helps to support the view that the maintenance of the Russian presence is a major counterweight in dissuading Turkey from continually expanding its control over the entire region. In this regard, the new Islamist authority in Syria, backed by Turkey poses a direct danger to Israel. If Turkiye expedites these organizations, it is feared that these organizations will become considerably stronger and pose a serious threat to the borders of Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel feels that a weak and disorganized Syria is preferable to one that is a well-organized state governed by Islamist extremists. This development lessens the possibility that Syria may be turned into a launching pad for attacks against Israel, as well as prevents any single state from emerging as the dominant power in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Russian presence ties together the balance of power in the region. Keeping that balance of power is of utmost importance to ensure that any one actor, especially Turkiye, does not get to exert excessive power in the region. To contain jihadists within Syria, Israel seeks to keep<\/a> Russia's presence felt in Syria to counter Islamist insurgency threats to Israel. This strategy is assumed to be very useful in keeping the security of Israel intact.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel's lobbying efforts should be weighed against broader US geopolitical objectives in the region. While American suspicion of Russian intervention in Syria has always been present, Israel's position could have implications for American strategy, especially under the current administration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To mop up what they could have in US-Turkish relations, they would argue that the preference Israel has displayed towards Russian influence rather than Turkish influence was curious given Turkey's status within NATO. This shows how complicated regional alliances and geopolitical preferences are. This highlights the need for prudent diplomacy and the natural balance of power that has evolved. It is yet to be seen how long Russian bases in Syria will last. Russia has taken steps to remove some of its assets, and it will be determined how long it will keep military bases through trade talks with Syria's new leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Israel perceives Russia's continued involvement as vital to balance the power protruding from Turkiye. Among others, it backs Islamist groups in Syria, which Israel sees as constituting a threat to it. The region is becoming increasingly of concern among Israel as Turkiye's interest in that region is growing. By weakening and scattering Syria, this is attempting to ensure that entities that it believes are rivals won't rise to prominence. Israel's main concern is that Turkey would give shelter to these elements, compromising Israel's borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Support of Turkiye is a real danger, as it is believed an Islamist group may find its way to the borders of Israel after being supported by a very powerful Turkiye. It helps to support the view that the maintenance of the Russian presence is a major counterweight in dissuading Turkey from continually expanding its control over the entire region. In this regard, the new Islamist authority in Syria, backed by Turkey poses a direct danger to Israel. If Turkiye expedites these organizations, it is feared that these organizations will become considerably stronger and pose a serious threat to the borders of Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel feels that a weak and disorganized Syria is preferable to one that is a well-organized state governed by Islamist extremists. This development lessens the possibility that Syria may be turned into a launching pad for attacks against Israel, as well as prevents any single state from emerging as the dominant power in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Russian presence ties together the balance of power in the region. Keeping that balance of power is of utmost importance to ensure that any one actor, especially Turkiye, does not get to exert excessive power in the region. To contain jihadists within Syria, Israel seeks to keep<\/a> Russia's presence felt in Syria to counter Islamist insurgency threats to Israel. This strategy is assumed to be very useful in keeping the security of Israel intact.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel's lobbying efforts should be weighed against broader US geopolitical objectives in the region. While American suspicion of Russian intervention in Syria has always been present, Israel's position could have implications for American strategy, especially under the current administration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To mop up what they could have in US-Turkish relations, they would argue that the preference Israel has displayed towards Russian influence rather than Turkish influence was curious given Turkey's status within NATO. This shows how complicated regional alliances and geopolitical preferences are. This highlights the need for prudent diplomacy and the natural balance of power that has evolved. It is yet to be seen how long Russian bases in Syria will last. Russia has taken steps to remove some of its assets, and it will be determined how long it will keep military bases through trade talks with Syria's new leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Israel perceives Russia's continued involvement as vital to balance the power protruding from Turkiye. Among others, it backs Islamist groups in Syria, which Israel sees as constituting a threat to it. The region is becoming increasingly of concern among Israel as Turkiye's interest in that region is growing. By weakening and scattering Syria, this is attempting to ensure that entities that it believes are rivals won't rise to prominence. Israel's main concern is that Turkey would give shelter to these elements, compromising Israel's borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Support of Turkiye is a real danger, as it is believed an Islamist group may find its way to the borders of Israel after being supported by a very powerful Turkiye. It helps to support the view that the maintenance of the Russian presence is a major counterweight in dissuading Turkey from continually expanding its control over the entire region. In this regard, the new Islamist authority in Syria, backed by Turkey poses a direct danger to Israel. If Turkiye expedites these organizations, it is feared that these organizations will become considerably stronger and pose a serious threat to the borders of Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel feels that a weak and disorganized Syria is preferable to one that is a well-organized state governed by Islamist extremists. This development lessens the possibility that Syria may be turned into a launching pad for attacks against Israel, as well as prevents any single state from emerging as the dominant power in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Russian presence ties together the balance of power in the region. Keeping that balance of power is of utmost importance to ensure that any one actor, especially Turkiye, does not get to exert excessive power in the region. To contain jihadists within Syria, Israel seeks to keep<\/a> Russia's presence felt in Syria to counter Islamist insurgency threats to Israel. This strategy is assumed to be very useful in keeping the security of Israel intact.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel's lobbying efforts should be weighed against broader US geopolitical objectives in the region. While American suspicion of Russian intervention in Syria has always been present, Israel's position could have implications for American strategy, especially under the current administration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To mop up what they could have in US-Turkish relations, they would argue that the preference Israel has displayed towards Russian influence rather than Turkish influence was curious given Turkey's status within NATO. This shows how complicated regional alliances and geopolitical preferences are. This highlights the need for prudent diplomacy and the natural balance of power that has evolved. It is yet to be seen how long Russian bases in Syria will last. Russia has taken steps to remove some of its assets, and it will be determined how long it will keep military bases through trade talks with Syria's new leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The Syrian Civil War has continued since 2011 and has grown into an exceedingly complicated multi-national conflict. With Russia's involvement in 2015, most of Syria returned under the government of Bashar al-Assad<\/a>, drastically tipping the balance of power toward Assad. Most recently, he was dethroned by Islamist groups mainly backed by Turkey, creating a world of volatility all over again. It has a sizable military presence in Syria, centrally located on its air base in Latakia and a navy facility in Tartus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel perceives Russia's continued involvement as vital to balance the power protruding from Turkiye. Among others, it backs Islamist groups in Syria, which Israel sees as constituting a threat to it. The region is becoming increasingly of concern among Israel as Turkiye's interest in that region is growing. By weakening and scattering Syria, this is attempting to ensure that entities that it believes are rivals won't rise to prominence. Israel's main concern is that Turkey would give shelter to these elements, compromising Israel's borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Support of Turkiye is a real danger, as it is believed an Islamist group may find its way to the borders of Israel after being supported by a very powerful Turkiye. It helps to support the view that the maintenance of the Russian presence is a major counterweight in dissuading Turkey from continually expanding its control over the entire region. In this regard, the new Islamist authority in Syria, backed by Turkey poses a direct danger to Israel. If Turkiye expedites these organizations, it is feared that these organizations will become considerably stronger and pose a serious threat to the borders of Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel feels that a weak and disorganized Syria is preferable to one that is a well-organized state governed by Islamist extremists. This development lessens the possibility that Syria may be turned into a launching pad for attacks against Israel, as well as prevents any single state from emerging as the dominant power in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Russian presence ties together the balance of power in the region. Keeping that balance of power is of utmost importance to ensure that any one actor, especially Turkiye, does not get to exert excessive power in the region. To contain jihadists within Syria, Israel seeks to keep<\/a> Russia's presence felt in Syria to counter Islamist insurgency threats to Israel. This strategy is assumed to be very useful in keeping the security of Israel intact.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel's lobbying efforts should be weighed against broader US geopolitical objectives in the region. While American suspicion of Russian intervention in Syria has always been present, Israel's position could have implications for American strategy, especially under the current administration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To mop up what they could have in US-Turkish relations, they would argue that the preference Israel has displayed towards Russian influence rather than Turkish influence was curious given Turkey's status within NATO. This shows how complicated regional alliances and geopolitical preferences are. This highlights the need for prudent diplomacy and the natural balance of power that has evolved. It is yet to be seen how long Russian bases in Syria will last. Russia has taken steps to remove some of its assets, and it will be determined how long it will keep military bases through trade talks with Syria's new leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
It seems that Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss has been meddling in the US political landscape for years by funneling hundreds of millions of dollars through the Arabella Advisors network to benefit liberal and left-wing causes.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Swiss billionaire Wyss influencing U.S. politics through money","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"swiss-billionaire-wyss-influencing-u-s-politics-through-money","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-23 05:19:22","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-23 05:19:22","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7435","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7427,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-03-10 18:33:47","post_date_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:47","post_content":"\n The Syrian Civil War has continued since 2011 and has grown into an exceedingly complicated multi-national conflict. With Russia's involvement in 2015, most of Syria returned under the government of Bashar al-Assad<\/a>, drastically tipping the balance of power toward Assad. Most recently, he was dethroned by Islamist groups mainly backed by Turkey, creating a world of volatility all over again. It has a sizable military presence in Syria, centrally located on its air base in Latakia and a navy facility in Tartus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel perceives Russia's continued involvement as vital to balance the power protruding from Turkiye. Among others, it backs Islamist groups in Syria, which Israel sees as constituting a threat to it. The region is becoming increasingly of concern among Israel as Turkiye's interest in that region is growing. By weakening and scattering Syria, this is attempting to ensure that entities that it believes are rivals won't rise to prominence. Israel's main concern is that Turkey would give shelter to these elements, compromising Israel's borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Support of Turkiye is a real danger, as it is believed an Islamist group may find its way to the borders of Israel after being supported by a very powerful Turkiye. It helps to support the view that the maintenance of the Russian presence is a major counterweight in dissuading Turkey from continually expanding its control over the entire region. In this regard, the new Islamist authority in Syria, backed by Turkey poses a direct danger to Israel. If Turkiye expedites these organizations, it is feared that these organizations will become considerably stronger and pose a serious threat to the borders of Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel feels that a weak and disorganized Syria is preferable to one that is a well-organized state governed by Islamist extremists. This development lessens the possibility that Syria may be turned into a launching pad for attacks against Israel, as well as prevents any single state from emerging as the dominant power in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Russian presence ties together the balance of power in the region. Keeping that balance of power is of utmost importance to ensure that any one actor, especially Turkiye, does not get to exert excessive power in the region. To contain jihadists within Syria, Israel seeks to keep<\/a> Russia's presence felt in Syria to counter Islamist insurgency threats to Israel. This strategy is assumed to be very useful in keeping the security of Israel intact.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel's lobbying efforts should be weighed against broader US geopolitical objectives in the region. While American suspicion of Russian intervention in Syria has always been present, Israel's position could have implications for American strategy, especially under the current administration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To mop up what they could have in US-Turkish relations, they would argue that the preference Israel has displayed towards Russian influence rather than Turkish influence was curious given Turkey's status within NATO. This shows how complicated regional alliances and geopolitical preferences are. This highlights the need for prudent diplomacy and the natural balance of power that has evolved. It is yet to be seen how long Russian bases in Syria will last. Russia has taken steps to remove some of its assets, and it will be determined how long it will keep military bases through trade talks with Syria's new leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Despite his comprehensive political engagement, Wyss has avoided applying for U.S. citizenship, extending questions regarding the influence of foreign billionaires in the formulation of American policies and elections. His increasing<\/a>slguardian.org role in supporting left-leaning political movements has attracted comparisons to George Soros, another billionaire famous for his globalist philanthropic and political funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It seems that Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss has been meddling in the US political landscape for years by funneling hundreds of millions of dollars through the Arabella Advisors network to benefit liberal and left-wing causes.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Swiss billionaire Wyss influencing U.S. politics through money","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"swiss-billionaire-wyss-influencing-u-s-politics-through-money","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-23 05:19:22","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-23 05:19:22","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7435","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7427,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-03-10 18:33:47","post_date_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:47","post_content":"\n The Syrian Civil War has continued since 2011 and has grown into an exceedingly complicated multi-national conflict. With Russia's involvement in 2015, most of Syria returned under the government of Bashar al-Assad<\/a>, drastically tipping the balance of power toward Assad. Most recently, he was dethroned by Islamist groups mainly backed by Turkey, creating a world of volatility all over again. It has a sizable military presence in Syria, centrally located on its air base in Latakia and a navy facility in Tartus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel perceives Russia's continued involvement as vital to balance the power protruding from Turkiye. Among others, it backs Islamist groups in Syria, which Israel sees as constituting a threat to it. The region is becoming increasingly of concern among Israel as Turkiye's interest in that region is growing. By weakening and scattering Syria, this is attempting to ensure that entities that it believes are rivals won't rise to prominence. Israel's main concern is that Turkey would give shelter to these elements, compromising Israel's borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Support of Turkiye is a real danger, as it is believed an Islamist group may find its way to the borders of Israel after being supported by a very powerful Turkiye. It helps to support the view that the maintenance of the Russian presence is a major counterweight in dissuading Turkey from continually expanding its control over the entire region. In this regard, the new Islamist authority in Syria, backed by Turkey poses a direct danger to Israel. If Turkiye expedites these organizations, it is feared that these organizations will become considerably stronger and pose a serious threat to the borders of Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel feels that a weak and disorganized Syria is preferable to one that is a well-organized state governed by Islamist extremists. This development lessens the possibility that Syria may be turned into a launching pad for attacks against Israel, as well as prevents any single state from emerging as the dominant power in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Russian presence ties together the balance of power in the region. Keeping that balance of power is of utmost importance to ensure that any one actor, especially Turkiye, does not get to exert excessive power in the region. To contain jihadists within Syria, Israel seeks to keep<\/a> Russia's presence felt in Syria to counter Islamist insurgency threats to Israel. This strategy is assumed to be very useful in keeping the security of Israel intact.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel's lobbying efforts should be weighed against broader US geopolitical objectives in the region. While American suspicion of Russian intervention in Syria has always been present, Israel's position could have implications for American strategy, especially under the current administration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To mop up what they could have in US-Turkish relations, they would argue that the preference Israel has displayed towards Russian influence rather than Turkish influence was curious given Turkey's status within NATO. This shows how complicated regional alliances and geopolitical preferences are. This highlights the need for prudent diplomacy and the natural balance of power that has evolved. It is yet to be seen how long Russian bases in Syria will last. Russia has taken steps to remove some of its assets, and it will be determined how long it will keep military bases through trade talks with Syria's new leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to the reports, Wyss's financial power isn't limited to the U.S. His contributions have supported political initiatives across Africa, Europe and Latin America. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite his comprehensive political engagement, Wyss has avoided applying for U.S. citizenship, extending questions regarding the influence of foreign billionaires in the formulation of American policies and elections. His increasing<\/a>slguardian.org role in supporting left-leaning political movements has attracted comparisons to George Soros, another billionaire famous for his globalist philanthropic and political funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It seems that Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss has been meddling in the US political landscape for years by funneling hundreds of millions of dollars through the Arabella Advisors network to benefit liberal and left-wing causes.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Swiss billionaire Wyss influencing U.S. politics through money","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"swiss-billionaire-wyss-influencing-u-s-politics-through-money","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-23 05:19:22","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-23 05:19:22","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7435","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7427,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-03-10 18:33:47","post_date_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:47","post_content":"\n The Syrian Civil War has continued since 2011 and has grown into an exceedingly complicated multi-national conflict. With Russia's involvement in 2015, most of Syria returned under the government of Bashar al-Assad<\/a>, drastically tipping the balance of power toward Assad. Most recently, he was dethroned by Islamist groups mainly backed by Turkey, creating a world of volatility all over again. It has a sizable military presence in Syria, centrally located on its air base in Latakia and a navy facility in Tartus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel perceives Russia's continued involvement as vital to balance the power protruding from Turkiye. Among others, it backs Islamist groups in Syria, which Israel sees as constituting a threat to it. The region is becoming increasingly of concern among Israel as Turkiye's interest in that region is growing. By weakening and scattering Syria, this is attempting to ensure that entities that it believes are rivals won't rise to prominence. Israel's main concern is that Turkey would give shelter to these elements, compromising Israel's borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Support of Turkiye is a real danger, as it is believed an Islamist group may find its way to the borders of Israel after being supported by a very powerful Turkiye. It helps to support the view that the maintenance of the Russian presence is a major counterweight in dissuading Turkey from continually expanding its control over the entire region. In this regard, the new Islamist authority in Syria, backed by Turkey poses a direct danger to Israel. If Turkiye expedites these organizations, it is feared that these organizations will become considerably stronger and pose a serious threat to the borders of Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel feels that a weak and disorganized Syria is preferable to one that is a well-organized state governed by Islamist extremists. This development lessens the possibility that Syria may be turned into a launching pad for attacks against Israel, as well as prevents any single state from emerging as the dominant power in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Russian presence ties together the balance of power in the region. Keeping that balance of power is of utmost importance to ensure that any one actor, especially Turkiye, does not get to exert excessive power in the region. To contain jihadists within Syria, Israel seeks to keep<\/a> Russia's presence felt in Syria to counter Islamist insurgency threats to Israel. This strategy is assumed to be very useful in keeping the security of Israel intact.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Israel's lobbying efforts should be weighed against broader US geopolitical objectives in the region. While American suspicion of Russian intervention in Syria has always been present, Israel's position could have implications for American strategy, especially under the current administration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To mop up what they could have in US-Turkish relations, they would argue that the preference Israel has displayed towards Russian influence rather than Turkish influence was curious given Turkey's status within NATO. This shows how complicated regional alliances and geopolitical preferences are. This highlights the need for prudent diplomacy and the natural balance of power that has evolved. It is yet to be seen how long Russian bases in Syria will last. Russia has taken steps to remove some of its assets, and it will be determined how long it will keep military bases through trade talks with Syria's new leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lobbying initiatives of Israel to maintain the operational status of the Russian military bases in Syria indicate an elaborate geopolitical plan to counter Turkiye's influence and ensure a certain degree of regional stability. Although the strategies may bring Israel short-term benefits, they equally constitute a challenge and uncertainties for the Middle East. The United States needs to carefully weigh such priorities in its regional discourse with consideration of the successful balance between strategic relations concerned with upholding stability and averting war in future circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian situation will, therefore, evolve in future interactions with great powers like Russia, Turkey, and the United States. While Israel continues to take premeditated steps to defend its security, it will continue to affect the evolution of this inheritance of turf within a dynamic environment. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Israel's strategic lobbying to maintain Russian military presence in Syria against Turkey","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"israels-strategic-lobbying-to-maintain-russian-military-presence-in-syria-against-turkey","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_modified_gmt":"2025-03-10 18:33:50","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7427","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7403,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_date_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:20","post_content":"\n President Donald Trump<\/a> made some important decisions in many executive orders that have an impact on the environment and climate of the planet. Even if many of Trump's actions are expected to be challenged in court. He is rapidly undoing \u200cclimate change measures that former President Joe Biden made a defining feature of his administration. The changes still exist, at least for the time being, in American environmental lobbying. As the Earth continues to warm, Trump's actions have been to distance himself from international climate action. He increases domestic oil and gas production and eliminates incentives for electric vehicles, which is concerning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to climate experts, the warmest year on record, 2024, is causing extreme weather that affects millions of people. These orders will make the air dirtier, people sicker, energy more expensive, and \u200ccommunities less prepared for extreme weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, Jan 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order ordering the US to once more leave the historic Paris climate deal. This deal aimed to promote international collaboration on climate change. Participating nations are required by the agreement to provide nationally determined contributions to the endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Trump's action implies that the federal government will not be making any financial obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is not attempting to reach emissions reduction targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, stated that abandoning the Paris Agreement won't shield Americans lobbying from the effects of climate change. It will give China and the EU a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce employment opportunities for American workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a vow to \"drill, baby, drill,\" Trump issued an executive order declaring an energy emergency. The Defense Production Act permits the government to use private property and resources to manufacture items deemed to be a national need. The federal use of eminent domain is one of the ways the order promotes the spread of oil and gas. Experts contest his claim that the order was based on an \"inadequate energy supply.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In actuality, the US has an ample supply of energy in all forms. The action is primarily intended to lower gas costs. It's crucial to remember that the United States currently produces more oil than any other country in history. America reached that point during the Biden administration, \"not necessarily as a result of the Biden administration's policies, but rather of policies that have been in place for forty years.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Endangered Species Act cannot be a barrier to energy production, according to one part of the proclamation announcing an energy emergency. This act will<\/a> weaken the Endangered Species Act and hasten the decline and possible extinction of many endangered species, including whales and sea turtles. This has been a barrier to the development of fossil fuels in the United States for decades. Additionally, Trump has permitted drilling in parts of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As part of a protracted process hampered by legal issues and exacerbated by political conflicts, Biden had previously both prohibited and authorized drilling in other Arctic regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"If a statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can still insist that EPA adopt a standard that protects fewer people and costs industry less,\" reads one early description of EPA during the Reagan administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reagan's EPA appointees oversaw previously unheard-of layoffs; several had experience in regulated businesses. Seventy-eight percent fewer civil cases were referred to the courts as a result of these reductions, which included the dismissal of over a quarter of its employees and a 21% budget cut by the US Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These improvements were mostly undone in the decades following Reagan's departure, during both Democratic and Republican governments, until the first term of President Donald J. Trump in 2016. With its budget cuts, layoffs, an abdication of federal responsibility, and a drastic reduction in enforcement, Trump's EPA operated similarly to Reagan's. As head of the executive branch of government, the US President is ultimately responsible for enforcing all laws. <\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump\u2019s environmental lobby: Reversing climate policies in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trumps-environmental-lobby-reversing-climate-policies-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 14:29:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7403","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7342,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_date_gmt":"2025-01-04 18:02:44","post_content":"\n According to Roxana Bekemohammadi, the founder of the lobbying group the US Hydrogen Alliance, state-by-state incentives may be more important to hydrogen's success in the US in the upcoming year than an increase in federal funding. Influence Map study, US lobbying is preliminary evidence that powerful fossil fuel interests are looking to influence and profit from a second Trump presidency. Numerous strategies presently being used by businesses are similar to those used during the first Trump administration, suggesting that well-known fossil fuel strategies will continue to influence politics and climate policy. It is anticipated that President Trump would fulfill his pledges to revoke all significant environmental laws, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and utilize his executive authority right away to undo policies of the Biden administration, such as the LNG export ban. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study presents three important findings about corporate policy impact that are probably going to hold during the second Trump term, combining new data with insights from the first Trump administration. Along with a change from defensive legal challenges to aggressive repeal demands, the data reveals that corporations are paying a lot of attention to issues related to fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas, which is expected to get worse by 2025. Federal and state policies about fossil gas and permitting reform, together with automotive rules, have garnered the highest support in the US database. This support has come from a variety of sources, including influential organizations like the American Gas Association. Recent top-line statements endorsing the Paris Agreement have been made by some companies, such as ExxonMobil, but they make no mention of the necessity of accelerating rather than slowing the energy transition or of a deeper regulation repeal. Corporate organizations are probably going to keep using particular, nuanced climate narratives that defend and support fossil fuels, especially in the public's perception, through 2025. The briefing highlights a significant overlap in \"consumer choice\" language between politicians and industry interests in the most recent US election as an illustration of this tendency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2015, InfluenceMap analysis in the US has increased gradually, and as of right now, the LobbyMap database includes 37 industry groups and 141 US-based firms. In addition to other factors, including the industry's importance to climate change<\/a>, the expansion of the LobbyMap database gives priority to the biggest businesses as determined by the Forbes Global 2000. Analysis has been conducted throughout several administrations, including the first term of President Trump. Out of the 178 fully evaluated US-based organizations, including businesses and trade groups, 25 (14%) are pursuing climate policy by science-based policy recommendations, 83 (47%) exhibit partially aligned advocacy, and 70 (39%) are not by scientific recommendations. In contrast, Europe has a significantly lower percentage of severely negative (misaligned) organizations and a higher percentage of positively engaging businesses. While 147 (63%) are partially aligned and 45 (19%) are misaligned, 42 (18%) of the evaluated European enterprises and associations are acting by IPCC recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to other regions, the results indicate that the highest percentage of businesses fall into the partially aligned category. These are businesses that take a range of stances on various subjects, either positively or negatively, or that compromise between being completely in favor of or against a cause. This category includes a large number of utility, industrial, and car corporations in the United States. Given that their decarbonization efforts are still in progress, these businesses are heavily involved in the energy transition and are probably impacted by money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Numerous unfavorable industry associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association, contribute to the US having a higher percentage of misaligned entities than other regions. The US lobbying stands out for having a significant number of actively obstructive industry associations that consistently oppose climate ambition, even though misaligned interests do not represent the entire economy. Of the 37 groups evaluated in the US lobbying, the majority (65%) are actively engaging in highly negative climate policy. In comparison, less than one-third of the evaluated groups in Europe are misaligned. These US trade groups frequently speak for the sizable and influential domestic oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the target of numerous lawsuits from industry over its climate-related rules before President Trump took office in 2017. For instance, the US Chamber of Commerce spearheaded<\/a> a lawsuit opposing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The administration's decision to substitute a weaker Clean Power Plan for the Obama-era one was then endorsed by at least seven significant US associations: the American Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API).<\/p>\n","post_title":"US Hydrogen Alliance to prioritize state-level advocacy in 2025","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-hydrogen-alliance-to-prioritize-state-level-advocacy-in-2025","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-04 11:39:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7342","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":13},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How could Russian bases be maintained in Syria?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How could Russian bases be maintained in Syria?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How could Russian bases be maintained in Syria?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How could Russian bases be maintained in Syria?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Israel\u2019s lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How could Russian bases be maintained in Syria?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Israel\u2019s lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How could Russian bases be maintained in Syria?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Israel\u2019s lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How could Russian bases be maintained in Syria?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Israel\u2019s lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How could Russian bases be maintained in Syria?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What kind of Russia\u2019s involvement in Syria? <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Israel\u2019s lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How could Russian bases be maintained in Syria?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What kind of Russia\u2019s involvement in Syria? <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Israel\u2019s lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How could Russian bases be maintained in Syria?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What kind of Russia\u2019s involvement in Syria? <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Israel\u2019s lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How could Russian bases be maintained in Syria?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What kind of Russia\u2019s involvement in Syria? <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Israel\u2019s lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How could Russian bases be maintained in Syria?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What kind of Russia\u2019s involvement in Syria? <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Israel\u2019s lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How could Russian bases be maintained in Syria?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why was Trump ordered to leave the historic Paris climate deal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trump's energy emergency order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Next steps for action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State-driven hydrogen advocacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hydrogen Alliance goes local<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Shaping State Hydrogen Policies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Targeting states for hydrogen growth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n