Menu
Menu
Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, a small number of affluent people have been the main source of Donald Trump's campaign's noteworthy fundraising surge. These include Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer Partners, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Concerns over the role of money in politics are raised by this development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
So far, the oil sector has donated over $21 million to Trump's campaign and his political action committees (PACs). Additionally, lawyers from big oil companies are already drafting executive orders for Trump to sign if he wins against Democratic candidate Kamala Harris next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, a small number of affluent people have been the main source of Donald Trump's campaign's noteworthy fundraising surge. These include Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer Partners, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Concerns over the role of money in politics are raised by this development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
One of the billionaires and founders of Continental Resources, Harold Hamm, supports Trump's action and raises funds from oil industry donors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the oil sector has donated over $21 million to Trump's campaign and his political action committees (PACs). Additionally, lawyers from big oil companies are already drafting executive orders for Trump to sign if he wins against Democratic candidate Kamala Harris next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, a small number of affluent people have been the main source of Donald Trump's campaign's noteworthy fundraising surge. These include Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer Partners, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Concerns over the role of money in politics are raised by this development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to OpenSecrets, in this election cycle, the oil and gas companies have spent a huge amount of money, $152 million. They also reported that more than 88% of this money was going to Republican candidates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the billionaires and founders of Continental Resources, Harold Hamm, supports Trump's action and raises funds from oil industry donors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the oil sector has donated over $21 million to Trump's campaign and his political action committees (PACs). Additionally, lawyers from big oil companies are already drafting executive orders for Trump to sign if he wins against Democratic candidate Kamala Harris next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, a small number of affluent people have been the main source of Donald Trump's campaign's noteworthy fundraising surge. These include Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer Partners, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Concerns over the role of money in politics are raised by this development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
One of the groups named as watchdog has requested \u200cthe FBI and Departemnt of Jusice to investigate the Donald Trump action. His effort to \u200cinfluence the oil industries may be considered a possible criminal bribery. Congressional Democrats are also looking into what they describe as Trump\u2019s \u201cquid pro quo solicitations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to OpenSecrets, in this election cycle, the oil and gas companies have spent a huge amount of money, $152 million. They also reported that more than 88% of this money was going to Republican candidates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the billionaires and founders of Continental Resources, Harold Hamm, supports Trump's action and raises funds from oil industry donors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the oil sector has donated over $21 million to Trump's campaign and his political action committees (PACs). Additionally, lawyers from big oil companies are already drafting executive orders for Trump to sign if he wins against Democratic candidate Kamala Harris next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, a small number of affluent people have been the main source of Donald Trump's campaign's noteworthy fundraising surge. These include Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer Partners, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Concerns over the role of money in politics are raised by this development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
This points out how fossil fuel industries want to change \u200cpolitical decisions according to their favoritism. The concern is increasing as the 2024 elections approach. At the start of this year, one of the candidates, Donal Trump<\/a>, asked oil companies to assist in raising $1 billion for his campaign. In exchange, he made promises with oil companies to give relaxations on the climate rules that were set by the current president of the United States, Joe Biden. This scenario raises questions about \u200chow donations from the fossil fuel industry can affect political decisions and the environment. It also suggests a possible conflict between business interests and efforts to protect the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the groups named as watchdog has requested \u200cthe FBI and Departemnt of Jusice to investigate the Donald Trump action. His effort to \u200cinfluence the oil industries may be considered a possible criminal bribery. Congressional Democrats are also looking into what they describe as Trump\u2019s \u201cquid pro quo solicitations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to OpenSecrets, in this election cycle, the oil and gas companies have spent a huge amount of money, $152 million. They also reported that more than 88% of this money was going to Republican candidates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the billionaires and founders of Continental Resources, Harold Hamm, supports Trump's action and raises funds from oil industry donors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the oil sector has donated over $21 million to Trump's campaign and his political action committees (PACs). Additionally, lawyers from big oil companies are already drafting executive orders for Trump to sign if he wins against Democratic candidate Kamala Harris next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, a small number of affluent people have been the main source of Donald Trump's campaign's noteworthy fundraising surge. These include Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer Partners, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Concerns over the role of money in politics are raised by this development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
This points out how fossil fuel industries want to change \u200cpolitical decisions according to their favoritism. The concern is increasing as the 2024 elections approach. At the start of this year, one of the candidates, Donal Trump<\/a>, asked oil companies to assist in raising $1 billion for his campaign. In exchange, he made promises with oil companies to give relaxations on the climate rules that were set by the current president of the United States, Joe Biden. This scenario raises questions about \u200chow donations from the fossil fuel industry can affect political decisions and the environment. It also suggests a possible conflict between business interests and efforts to protect the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the groups named as watchdog has requested \u200cthe FBI and Departemnt of Jusice to investigate the Donald Trump action. His effort to \u200cinfluence the oil industries may be considered a possible criminal bribery. Congressional Democrats are also looking into what they describe as Trump\u2019s \u201cquid pro quo solicitations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to OpenSecrets, in this election cycle, the oil and gas companies have spent a huge amount of money, $152 million. They also reported that more than 88% of this money was going to Republican candidates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the billionaires and founders of Continental Resources, Harold Hamm, supports Trump's action and raises funds from oil industry donors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the oil sector has donated over $21 million to Trump's campaign and his political action committees (PACs). Additionally, lawyers from big oil companies are already drafting executive orders for Trump to sign if he wins against Democratic candidate Kamala Harris next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, a small number of affluent people have been the main source of Donald Trump's campaign's noteworthy fundraising surge. These include Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer Partners, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Concerns over the role of money in politics are raised by this development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The fossil fuel industry has spent approximately more than $54.2 million in money on two super PACs during the 2023-2024 election cycle. A lot of money is spent on ads before Election Day to make efforts to win control of Congress. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This points out how fossil fuel industries want to change \u200cpolitical decisions according to their favoritism. The concern is increasing as the 2024 elections approach. At the start of this year, one of the candidates, Donal Trump<\/a>, asked oil companies to assist in raising $1 billion for his campaign. In exchange, he made promises with oil companies to give relaxations on the climate rules that were set by the current president of the United States, Joe Biden. This scenario raises questions about \u200chow donations from the fossil fuel industry can affect political decisions and the environment. It also suggests a possible conflict between business interests and efforts to protect the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the groups named as watchdog has requested \u200cthe FBI and Departemnt of Jusice to investigate the Donald Trump action. His effort to \u200cinfluence the oil industries may be considered a possible criminal bribery. Congressional Democrats are also looking into what they describe as Trump\u2019s \u201cquid pro quo solicitations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to OpenSecrets, in this election cycle, the oil and gas companies have spent a huge amount of money, $152 million. They also reported that more than 88% of this money was going to Republican candidates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the billionaires and founders of Continental Resources, Harold Hamm, supports Trump's action and raises funds from oil industry donors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the oil sector has donated over $21 million to Trump's campaign and his political action committees (PACs). Additionally, lawyers from big oil companies are already drafting executive orders for Trump to sign if he wins against Democratic candidate Kamala Harris next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, a small number of affluent people have been the main source of Donald Trump's campaign's noteworthy fundraising surge. These include Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer Partners, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Concerns over the role of money in politics are raised by this development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Their main objective is to shape\u200c politics that support their interests and secure a favorable atmosphere in Congress. This trend raises concern about the money's impact on democracy. It also creates donuts about the true decisions of the political landscape. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The fossil fuel industry has spent approximately more than $54.2 million in money on two super PACs during the 2023-2024 election cycle. A lot of money is spent on ads before Election Day to make efforts to win control of Congress. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This points out how fossil fuel industries want to change \u200cpolitical decisions according to their favoritism. The concern is increasing as the 2024 elections approach. At the start of this year, one of the candidates, Donal Trump<\/a>, asked oil companies to assist in raising $1 billion for his campaign. In exchange, he made promises with oil companies to give relaxations on the climate rules that were set by the current president of the United States, Joe Biden. This scenario raises questions about \u200chow donations from the fossil fuel industry can affect political decisions and the environment. It also suggests a possible conflict between business interests and efforts to protect the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the groups named as watchdog has requested \u200cthe FBI and Departemnt of Jusice to investigate the Donald Trump action. His effort to \u200cinfluence the oil industries may be considered a possible criminal bribery. Congressional Democrats are also looking into what they describe as Trump\u2019s \u201cquid pro quo solicitations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to OpenSecrets, in this election cycle, the oil and gas companies have spent a huge amount of money, $152 million. They also reported that more than 88% of this money was going to Republican candidates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the billionaires and founders of Continental Resources, Harold Hamm, supports Trump's action and raises funds from oil industry donors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the oil sector has donated over $21 million to Trump's campaign and his political action committees (PACs). Additionally, lawyers from big oil companies are already drafting executive orders for Trump to sign if he wins against Democratic candidate Kamala Harris next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, a small number of affluent people have been the main source of Donald Trump's campaign's noteworthy fundraising surge. These include Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer Partners, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Concerns over the role of money in politics are raised by this development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
This huge amount of spending highlights the fossil fuel industry\u2019s determination to impact \u200c political decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Their main objective is to shape\u200c politics that support their interests and secure a favorable atmosphere in Congress. This trend raises concern about the money's impact on democracy. It also creates donuts about the true decisions of the political landscape. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The fossil fuel industry has spent approximately more than $54.2 million in money on two super PACs during the 2023-2024 election cycle. A lot of money is spent on ads before Election Day to make efforts to win control of Congress. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This points out how fossil fuel industries want to change \u200cpolitical decisions according to their favoritism. The concern is increasing as the 2024 elections approach. At the start of this year, one of the candidates, Donal Trump<\/a>, asked oil companies to assist in raising $1 billion for his campaign. In exchange, he made promises with oil companies to give relaxations on the climate rules that were set by the current president of the United States, Joe Biden. This scenario raises questions about \u200chow donations from the fossil fuel industry can affect political decisions and the environment. It also suggests a possible conflict between business interests and efforts to protect the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the groups named as watchdog has requested \u200cthe FBI and Departemnt of Jusice to investigate the Donald Trump action. His effort to \u200cinfluence the oil industries may be considered a possible criminal bribery. Congressional Democrats are also looking into what they describe as Trump\u2019s \u201cquid pro quo solicitations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to OpenSecrets, in this election cycle, the oil and gas companies have spent a huge amount of money, $152 million. They also reported that more than 88% of this money was going to Republican candidates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the billionaires and founders of Continental Resources, Harold Hamm, supports Trump's action and raises funds from oil industry donors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the oil sector has donated over $21 million to Trump's campaign and his political action committees (PACs). Additionally, lawyers from big oil companies are already drafting executive orders for Trump to sign if he wins against Democratic candidate Kamala Harris next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, a small number of affluent people have been the main source of Donald Trump's campaign's noteworthy fundraising surge. These include Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer Partners, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Concerns over the role of money in politics are raised by this development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Furthermore, Federal Election Commission reports revealed the truth. According to this report, most \u200coil and gas companies, such as Chevron and ConocoPhillips, are spending more than $20 million of money in \u200ctwo key super PACs. One is the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) and the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF). They spent this money during the third quarter of 2024. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This huge amount of spending highlights the fossil fuel industry\u2019s determination to impact \u200c political decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Their main objective is to shape\u200c politics that support their interests and secure a favorable atmosphere in Congress. This trend raises concern about the money's impact on democracy. It also creates donuts about the true decisions of the political landscape. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The fossil fuel industry has spent approximately more than $54.2 million in money on two super PACs during the 2023-2024 election cycle. A lot of money is spent on ads before Election Day to make efforts to win control of Congress. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This points out how fossil fuel industries want to change \u200cpolitical decisions according to their favoritism. The concern is increasing as the 2024 elections approach. At the start of this year, one of the candidates, Donal Trump<\/a>, asked oil companies to assist in raising $1 billion for his campaign. In exchange, he made promises with oil companies to give relaxations on the climate rules that were set by the current president of the United States, Joe Biden. This scenario raises questions about \u200chow donations from the fossil fuel industry can affect political decisions and the environment. It also suggests a possible conflict between business interests and efforts to protect the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the groups named as watchdog has requested \u200cthe FBI and Departemnt of Jusice to investigate the Donald Trump action. His effort to \u200cinfluence the oil industries may be considered a possible criminal bribery. Congressional Democrats are also looking into what they describe as Trump\u2019s \u201cquid pro quo solicitations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to OpenSecrets, in this election cycle, the oil and gas companies have spent a huge amount of money, $152 million. They also reported that more than 88% of this money was going to Republican candidates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the billionaires and founders of Continental Resources, Harold Hamm, supports Trump's action and raises funds from oil industry donors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the oil sector has donated over $21 million to Trump's campaign and his political action committees (PACs). Additionally, lawyers from big oil companies are already drafting executive orders for Trump to sign if he wins against Democratic candidate Kamala Harris next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, a small number of affluent people have been the main source of Donald Trump's campaign's noteworthy fundraising surge. These include Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer Partners, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Concerns over the role of money in politics are raised by this development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to the latest report, the fossil fuel industry <\/a>is spending a lot of money on the 2024 UD presidential campaign. Their main objective is on super PACs, aiming at assisting Republicans maintain control of the House and regain the Senate.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Federal Election Commission reports revealed the truth. According to this report, most \u200coil and gas companies, such as Chevron and ConocoPhillips, are spending more than $20 million of money in \u200ctwo key super PACs. One is the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) and the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF). They spent this money during the third quarter of 2024. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This huge amount of spending highlights the fossil fuel industry\u2019s determination to impact \u200c political decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Their main objective is to shape\u200c politics that support their interests and secure a favorable atmosphere in Congress. This trend raises concern about the money's impact on democracy. It also creates donuts about the true decisions of the political landscape. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The fossil fuel industry has spent approximately more than $54.2 million in money on two super PACs during the 2023-2024 election cycle. A lot of money is spent on ads before Election Day to make efforts to win control of Congress. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This points out how fossil fuel industries want to change \u200cpolitical decisions according to their favoritism. The concern is increasing as the 2024 elections approach. At the start of this year, one of the candidates, Donal Trump<\/a>, asked oil companies to assist in raising $1 billion for his campaign. In exchange, he made promises with oil companies to give relaxations on the climate rules that were set by the current president of the United States, Joe Biden. This scenario raises questions about \u200chow donations from the fossil fuel industry can affect political decisions and the environment. It also suggests a possible conflict between business interests and efforts to protect the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the groups named as watchdog has requested \u200cthe FBI and Departemnt of Jusice to investigate the Donald Trump action. His effort to \u200cinfluence the oil industries may be considered a possible criminal bribery. Congressional Democrats are also looking into what they describe as Trump\u2019s \u201cquid pro quo solicitations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to OpenSecrets, in this election cycle, the oil and gas companies have spent a huge amount of money, $152 million. They also reported that more than 88% of this money was going to Republican candidates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the billionaires and founders of Continental Resources, Harold Hamm, supports Trump's action and raises funds from oil industry donors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the oil sector has donated over $21 million to Trump's campaign and his political action committees (PACs). Additionally, lawyers from big oil companies are already drafting executive orders for Trump to sign if he wins against Democratic candidate Kamala Harris next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, a small number of affluent people have been the main source of Donald Trump's campaign's noteworthy fundraising surge. These include Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer Partners, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Concerns over the role of money in politics are raised by this development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News reported in 2015 that Exxon knew, as early as 1977, that burning fossil fuels would warm the world, yet the company nonetheless went ahead and launched an attempt to delay the regulation of greenhouse gasses that warm the earth. This finding prompted a three-year congressional probe. According to InfluenceMap's study, several American Petroleum Institute members have deviated from the industry organization on certain climate policy. For instance, BP and Shell currently encourage the electrification of light-duty cars.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How API\u2019s climate lobbying continues to hinder progress","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-apis-climate-lobbying-continues-to-hinder-progress-2","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7220","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7211,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-15 19:01:32","post_content":"\n The CEO and President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Suzanne Clark, opposed both Trump and Harris for their anti-trade positions. It is the largest business lobbying group in the country. She is particularly worried about the idea of Donald Trump imposing a 60% tariff on goods from China. Clark said that most \u200cAmerican companies depend upon other nation, especially for importing parts and materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this purpose, China <\/a>is the leading nation. The proposal to include tariffs on Chinese imports would make the imports much more costly for \u200c manufacturers in the United States. Furthermore, the production costs of the business \u200calso increase, which makes American businesses less compatible. With such a plan, American businesses could never compete in the global market. Clarks is also concerned that these tariffs would result in higher prices for consumers. This kind of trade policy would harm the nation\u2019s economy. It negatively impacts businesses as well as jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, if Kamala Harris governs, she is likely to follow \u200cCurrent President Joe Biden<\/a>'s approach and avoid any new trade deals. In 2020, she was one of the ladies who opposed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA<\/a>). She voted against this deal because it did not address climate change. Now in 2024, she again criticized the deal, which highlights that her position and stance have not shifted. Many people, such as Clark have said that this anti-trade policy is not beneficial for the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It only harms the economy of the country. During an interview, she opposed the views of both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. According to her, both Trump and Harris are not in favour of \u200cnew trade agreements. This stance only harms the American economy and communities. The major concern is that without these deals, the US economy could never grow and the nation would lose many opportunities, especially in industries that rely on international trade. So, avoiding a new trade agreement could weaken America\u2019s global position and negatively impact its domestic economy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration<\/a> has changed its strategy of how it handles trade. It now follows a \"worker-centered\" policy. This strategy looks more carefully at past trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n These deals allowed the US to sell products to other countries while also letting more products from other countries come into the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some people, like Vice President Harris, some Democrats, and labour unions, think these deals could prove harmful for the manufacturers. They may lose their jobs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The major focus of Biden's administration is not the new trade deals. They are not working on new trade deals, like those with the UK and Kenya that began under Trump. This includes making the supply chain stronger and supporting clean energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They have also kept the current tariffs in place, so they don\u2019t have to ask Congress to approve any changes. This highlights that Biden's administration paid more attention to securing American jobs rather than expanding trade with other nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, various people opposed the Biden administration's trade plans due to its ineffectiveness. It includes the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, argue that these initiatives don\u2019t have the same positive impact as earlier agreements that reduced tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, many economic analysts examined Trump's proposal of increasing tariffs: 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on goods from other nations. After thorough research, they warned that these high taxes could push inflation above the Federal Reserve\u2019s target. If this happens, then it will lead to many economic complexities because the central bank might raise \u200cinterest rates. So, both the Biden and Trump trade policies are questioned for their effectiveness and possible negative effects on the economy.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Lobbying landscape: American business is in danger due to trade policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"lobbying-landscape-american-business-is-in-danger-due-to-trade-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7211","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
A further realization is the significance of seeing safety from a group perspective rather than an individual one. As part of coalitions and communities rather than as isolated entities, organizations, and advocates face risks and grow resilient. Therefore, collective protection approaches aim to strike a balance between immediate responses to pressing threats and longer-term initiatives to strengthen the sustainability and cohesion of networks, communities, and organizations. Some examples of these initiatives include creating cooperative safety protocols, resolving internal conflicts within organizations, and conducting collective threat analyses. Politicians who espouse antidemocratic and illiberal views frequently target their opponents by intensifying the politicized and selective implementation of current laws and regulations. For example, the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orb\u00e1n in Hungary has targeted independent civil society groups with tax audits. <\/p>\n","post_title":"International strategies for US civic space defense","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"international-strategies-for-us-civic-space-defense","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7230","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7224,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-22 17:45:21","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-22 17:45:21","post_content":"\n According to the latest report, the fossil fuel industry <\/a>is spending a lot of money on the 2024 UD presidential campaign. Their main objective is on super PACs, aiming at assisting Republicans maintain control of the House and regain the Senate.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Federal Election Commission reports revealed the truth. According to this report, most \u200coil and gas companies, such as Chevron and ConocoPhillips, are spending more than $20 million of money in \u200ctwo key super PACs. One is the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) and the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF). They spent this money during the third quarter of 2024. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This huge amount of spending highlights the fossil fuel industry\u2019s determination to impact \u200c political decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Their main objective is to shape\u200c politics that support their interests and secure a favorable atmosphere in Congress. This trend raises concern about the money's impact on democracy. It also creates donuts about the true decisions of the political landscape. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The fossil fuel industry has spent approximately more than $54.2 million in money on two super PACs during the 2023-2024 election cycle. A lot of money is spent on ads before Election Day to make efforts to win control of Congress. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This points out how fossil fuel industries want to change \u200cpolitical decisions according to their favoritism. The concern is increasing as the 2024 elections approach. At the start of this year, one of the candidates, Donal Trump<\/a>, asked oil companies to assist in raising $1 billion for his campaign. In exchange, he made promises with oil companies to give relaxations on the climate rules that were set by the current president of the United States, Joe Biden. This scenario raises questions about \u200chow donations from the fossil fuel industry can affect political decisions and the environment. It also suggests a possible conflict between business interests and efforts to protect the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the groups named as watchdog has requested \u200cthe FBI and Departemnt of Jusice to investigate the Donald Trump action. His effort to \u200cinfluence the oil industries may be considered a possible criminal bribery. Congressional Democrats are also looking into what they describe as Trump\u2019s \u201cquid pro quo solicitations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to OpenSecrets, in this election cycle, the oil and gas companies have spent a huge amount of money, $152 million. They also reported that more than 88% of this money was going to Republican candidates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the billionaires and founders of Continental Resources, Harold Hamm, supports Trump's action and raises funds from oil industry donors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the oil sector has donated over $21 million to Trump's campaign and his political action committees (PACs). Additionally, lawyers from big oil companies are already drafting executive orders for Trump to sign if he wins against Democratic candidate Kamala Harris next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, a small number of affluent people have been the main source of Donald Trump's campaign's noteworthy fundraising surge. These include Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer Partners, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Concerns over the role of money in politics are raised by this development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The CEO of the anti-corruption<\/a> organization RepresentUs, Joshua Graham Lynn, offered his thoughts on the matter, saying that the most recent filings demonstrate how a few billionaires are spending enormous sums of money to influence election outcomes. He mentioned the 2010 Native Americans United ruling from the Supreme Court, which permitted people and businesses to hand over an unlimited amount of money to political elections. American politics have been significantly impacted by this decision, which has exacerbated polarization and conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lynn faces that the political system is distorted and that a significant contributing factor to the issue is the increasing power of money. He thinks it is crucial to eradicate this financial influence and deal with the corruption that frequently goes along with it in order to bring balance and justice back to elections. Without these adjustments, the political system's honor will keep deteriorating, making significant reforms challenging. <\/p>\n","post_title":"How the fossil fuel industries want to change the 2024 election results","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-the-fossil-fuel-industries-want-to-change-the-2024-election-results","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7224","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7220,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-10-20 18:47:28","post_content":"\n As to a recent analysis by InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks lobbying by the fossil fuel business, groups representing the oil and gas industry have been impeding the worldwide transition towards renewable energy and electric cars since at least 1967 by employing the same strategy. The July 11 research details how, over 50 years, the American Petroleum Institute and two of its European equivalents used the same justifications to undermine, reject, or postpone taking action on climate change, even as our understanding of the role that fossil fuels play in global warming changed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at InfluenceMap examined narrative patterns that appeared in more than 50 instances between 1967 and 2023, a period during which the fossil fuel sector opposed legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. They discovered that industry associations consistently advocated for a \"all-of-the-above,\" technology-neutral strategy to combat climate change while downplaying the usefulness and cost of fossil fuel substitutes. Industry associations also used energy security, a concern that has grown in importance since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, to support their arguments against renewable energy sources. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute said in 1975 that the Clean Air Act would impair \"energy self-sufficiency\" by taking capital away from oil and gas production. A similar case was made by the industry group to delay the switch to electric cars the previous year. The American Petroleum Institute claimed in comments to the EPA in 2023 that the country's increased reliance on vital minerals mined outside of the US for use in electric vehicles would \"negatively impact US energy security\" as a result of the agency's new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representing around 600 oil and gas corporations, the American Petroleum Institute is one of the biggest and most powerful associations for the fossil fuel sector worldwide. Based on a study of lobbying reports by OpenSecrets, it usually spends between $4 million and $9 million on federal lobbying annually. For federal lobbying, the organization spent $1.8 million in the first three months of 2024. July 22 is the next date for filing. Additionally, the American Petroleum Institute began to spend millions on federal elections in 2016; these expenditures primarily benefited Republicans. As of June 21, it has directed $2.5 million for the 2023\u20132024 Senate Leadership Fund and $1 million toward the Congressional Leadership Fund. The goal of the two organizations is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, respectively. To defend new oil and gas projects, fossil fuel businesses frequently point to customer demand, according to InfluenceMap program manager Tom Holen. This analysis refutes that claim by exposing the industry's complicity in upholding the existing quo and defending fossil fuels' hegemony in the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Holen, \"this persistent use of false narratives has probably delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to the advancement of climate policy.\" The UN Climate Program discovered in 2023 that the world's countries are not on pace to meet the Paris Climate Accords' aim of keeping global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. Three-quarters of the hundreds of climate experts surveyed by the Guardian this year believe that global temperatures<\/a> will rise by at least 2.5C this century. The lack of progress on climate solutions was attributed by over 60% of respondents to corporate interests. The InfluenceMap analysis also expands on other studies concerning the fossil fuel industry's multi-decade effort to cast doubt on its contribution to climate change. In a joint report published earlier this year, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee charged the fossil fuel sector with \"climate denial, disinformation, and doublespeak.\" According to the research, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade associations have been used by oil and gas firms to disseminate false information and advocate for measures that are unlikely to pass and with which they do not wish to be linked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why do fossil fuel industries want to change \u200celection results?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why do fossil fuel industries want to change \u200celection results?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why do fossil fuel industries want to change \u200celection results?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why do fossil fuel industries want to change \u200celection results?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why do fossil fuel industries want to change \u200celection results?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why do fossil fuel industries want to change \u200celection results?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Climate science ignored<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why do anti-trade policies harm the US economy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why do fossil fuel industries want to change \u200celection results?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Lobbying tactics unchanged<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Decades of delaying action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old arguments resurface<\/h2>\n\n\n\n