zondag 29 september 2024

Leonard Leo-linked group attacking efforts to educate judges on climate



 Big oil uncovered

Leonard Leo-linked group attacking efforts to educate judges on climate

Rightwing US thinktank claimed in report that non-profit holding trainings is ‘corruptly influencing the courts’

A rightwing organization is attacking efforts to educate judges about the climate crisis. The group appears to be connected to Leonard Leo, the architect of the rightwing takeover of the American judiciary who helped select Trump’s supreme court nominees, the Guardian has learned.

The Washington DC-based non-profit Environmental Law Institute (ELI)’s Climate Judiciary Project holds seminars for lawyers and judges about the climate crisis. It aims to “provide neutral, objective information to the judiciary about the science of climate change as it is understood by the expert scientific community and relevant to current and future litigation”, according to ELI’s website.

The American Energy Institute (AEI), a rightwing, pro-fossil fuel thinktank, has been attacking ELI and their climate trainings in recent months. In August, the organization published a report saying ELI was “corruptly influencing the courts and destroying the rule of law to promote questionable climate science”.

ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project is “falsely portraying itself as a neutral entity teaching judges about questionable climate science”, the report says. In reality, AEI claims, the project is a partner to the more than two dozen US cities and states who are suing big oil for allegedly sowing doubt about the climate crisis despite longstanding knowledge of the climate dangers of coal, oil and gas usage.

In a PowerPoint presentation about the report found on AEI’s website, the group says the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) is a “wholly aligned with the climate change plaintiffs and helps them corruptly influence judges behind closed doors”.

“Their true purpose is to preview the plaintiffs’ arguments in the climate cases in an ex parte setting,” the presentation says.

Both the report and the PowerPoint presentation link AEI to CRC Advisors, a public relations firm chaired by rightwing dark money impresario Leo. Given his outsize role in shaping the US judiciary – Leo helped select multiple judicial nominees for former president Donald Trump, including personally lobbying for Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment – his firm’s role in opposing climate litigation is notable.

“He was greatly responsible for moving our federal court systems to the right,” said David Armiak, the research director for Center for Media and Democracy, a watchdog group tracking money in politics, of Leo. CRC Advisors’ work with AEI, Armiak said, seemed “to delegitimize a group that’s seeking to inform judges or the judicial system of climate science, something that [Leo] also opposed with some of his other efforts”.

The AEI report’s document properties show that its author was Maggie Howell, director of branding and design at CRC Advisors. And the PowerPoint’s document properties lists CRC Advisors’s vice-president, Kevin Daley, as the author.

Neither CRC Advisors nor Leo responded to requests for comment.

In an email, the American Energy Institute CEO, Jason Isaac, said: “American Energy Institute employed CRC Advisors to edit and promote our groundbreaking report on the corrupt relationship between our federal court system and leftwing dark money groups.”

But Kert Davies, the director of special investigations at the non-profit Center for Climate Integrity, who shared the report and PowerPoint with the Guardian, said ELI is “far from leftwing”.

The institute’s staff include a wide variety of legal and climate experts. Its board includes executives from Shell Group and BP, oil companies who have been named as defendants in climate litigation, and a partner at a law firm which represents Chevron. Two partners with the law firm Baker Botts LLP, which represents Sunoco LP and its subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum Ltd, in a climate lawsuit filed by Honolulu, also sit on ELI’s leadership council, E&E News previously reported.

“ELI’s seminars are giving judges the ABCs of climate change, which is a complicated subject that they ought to know about,” said Davies. “The idea that they’re corruptly influencing the court from the left … is complete disinformation.”

Asked for comment about ELI’s connection to oil companies, the AEI CEO, Isaac, said that “all of those companies have embraced and/or are pushing political agendas” that are “contrary to the best interest of Americans, American energy producers, and human flourishing”, including environmental social and governance (ESG) investing and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

“They are the appeasers, the ones feeding the crocodiles,” he said. He did not respond to questions about the extent of the relationship between AEI and CRC Advisors.

In a statement, Nick Collins, a spokesperson for ELI, called the AEI report “full of misinformation and created by an organization whose leadership regularly spreads false claims about climate science”, and described the CJP curriculum as “fact-based and science-first, developed with a robust peer review process that meets the highest scholarly standards”.

Pending climate litigation

AEI’s attack on the judicial climate education program comes as the supreme court considers litigation that could put big oil on the hook for billions of dollars.

Honolulu is one of dozens of cities and states to sue oil majors for allegedly hiding the dangers of their products from the public. Hawaii’s supreme court ruled that the suit can go to trial, but the defendants petitioned the US supreme court to review that decision, arguing the cases should be thrown out because emissions are a federal issue that cannot be tried in state courts.

This past spring, far-right fossil fuel allies launched an unprecedented campaign pressuring the supreme court to side with the defendants and shield fossil fuel companies from the litigation. Several of the groups behind the campaign have ties to Leo.

In June, the supreme court asked the Biden administration to weigh in on the defendants’ request. Biden officials could respond as soon as Monday.

“It’s doubtful that AEI’s timing of their report release was a coincidence,” said Davies.

The supreme court may weigh in on another case as early as Monday, too: in April, 20 Republican state attorneys general filed “friend of the court” briefs asking the supreme court to prevent states from being able to sue oil companies for climate damages. All of the signatories are members of the Republican Attorneys General Association, to which Leo’s Concord Fund is a major contributor.

CRC Advisors

In the weeks since its publication, AEI’s report attacking ELI has received a surge of interest from rightwing media. Fox News featured the report, as did an array of conservative websites. On Thursday, the Hill published an op-ed by Ted Cruz attacking the ELI project. Other rightwing groups have previously questioned the motives of ELI.

CRC Advisors has counted Chevron, one of the plaintiffs in Honolulu’s lawsuit, as a client. In 2018, the Leo-led PR firm also worked on a campaign aimed at exonerating the supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh from accusations of sexual assault.

Davies said it “would not be surprising” if CRC Advisors had a “large role” in the creation or promotion of the AEI report attacking ELI’s judiciary trainings. “They’re known for running campaigns for corporate interests and rightwing interests,” he said.

American Energy Institute

In addition to his work with AEI, Isaac also serves as a fellow at Texas Public Policy Foundation – a thinktank backed by oil and gas companies which has recently garnered scrutiny for its role in drafting the ultraconservative policy playbook Project 2025.

A former Republican Texas state representative, Isaac has dedicated much of his career to disputing climate research and promoting misinformation to justify deregulation of the fossil fuel industry. Isaac recently responded to a Twitter post about Climate Week by the EPA, calling the conference on climate change “nothing more than a celebration of people suffering from mental illness, #EcoDysphoria, with those attending insisting the rest of us catch it.”

On a 25 September episode of the rightwing Wisconsin talk radio show The Vicki McKenna Show, Isaac offered a defense of the fossil fuel industry, describing oil and gas as keys to prosperity. “I live a high-carbon lifestyle,” he said. “I wish the rest of the world could, too.”

Formerly known as Texas Natural Gas Foundation, AEI on its face appears to contribute little more than public relations work in defense of the fossil fuels industry. The group publishes blogposts defending carbon emissions and denouncing the push for climate action. It has also produced a handful of longer reports promoting laws that restrict environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing and opposing the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.

Among AEI’s board members are Steve Milloy, who served on Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition team, once ran a tobacco industry front group, and is a well-known climate denier. Milloy did not respond to a request for comment.

According to the group’s most recent tax filings, AEI, which lists four staffers and a CEO on its website, is not a lavish operation. The group brought in about $312,000 in revenue in 2022 and appears to fund its operations at least partly by selling merchandise – among other products, AEI offers T-shirts, tote bags and beer koozies emblazoned with the words “I Embrace The High Carbon Lifestyle”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/29/leonard-leo-group-influencing-judges-climate-education

Project 2025: The right-wing wish list for another Trump presidency

 


Project 2025: The right-wing wish list for another Trump presidency

Mike Wendling
BBC News
EPA Donald Trump gesturing behind a lecternEPA

It is a 900-page policy "wish list" for the next Republican president, a proposal that would expand presidential power and impose an ultra-conservative social vision.

"What you're going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025, that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected again," Vice-President Kamala Harris said early in the ABC News presidential debate.

Donald Trump, who has repeatedly disavowed the document, responded: "I have nothing to do with Project 2025".

Dozens of former Trump administration officials have however contributed to the think tank's proposals, providing Democrats with an attack line against the former president.

The backlash against some of the more radical proposals in Project 2025, conceived by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, has been intense.

The project's director stepped down after criticism of the plan from Democrats and anger from the Trump campaign, which accused Heritage officials of trying to exaggerate their influence over the former president.

And despite Trump distancing himself from Project 2025, it continues to remain a key election talking point.

Here's your guide to what the document contains.

Who wrote Project 2025?

The Heritage Foundation is one of Washington's most prominent right-wing think tanks. It first produced policy plans for future Republican administrations in 1981, when Ronald Reagan was about to take office.

It has produced similar documents in connection with subsequent presidential elections, including in 2016, when Trump won the presidency.

That's not unusual - it's common for US think tanks of all political stripes to propose policy wish lists for future governments.

And Heritage has been successful in influencing Republican administrations. A year into Trump's term, it boasted that the White House had adopted nearly two-thirds of its proposals.

The Project 2025 report was unveiled in April 2023, but Democratic opposition to the document has ramped up as this year's race has intensified.

Democratic politicians have launched a "Stop Project 2025 Task Force" and even set up a tip line to collect insider information on Heritage's activities, claiming there is a "secret" part of the agenda pushing a list of executive orders.

The Harris campaign and its surrogates have consistently brought up the project in interviews and speeches.

Trump began pushing away from the document in early July.

"I know nothing about Project 2025," he posted on his social media platform, Truth Social. "I have no idea who is behind it.

"I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."

During the presidential debate with Harris, he was more nuanced, and said the ideas in the document included "some good, some bad".

"But it makes no difference," he said. "I have nothing to do (with it)."

The team that created the project was chock-full of former Trump advisers, including director Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management while Trump was president.

Dans left the project in late July, clearing the way for Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts to take over. He said he was leaving during the presidential election season in order to "direct all my efforts to winning, bigly".

Russell Vought, another former Trump administration official, wrote a key chapter in the document and also serves as the Republican National Committee’s 2024 platform policy director.

More than 100 conservative organisations contributed to the document, Heritage says, including many that would also be hugely influential in Washington if Republicans took back the White House.

The document itself sets out four main policy aims: restore the family as the centrepiece of American life; dismantle the administrative state; defend the nation's sovereignty and borders; and secure God-given individual rights to live freely.

Government

Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control - a controversial idea known as "unitary executive theory".

In practice, that would streamline decision-making, allowing the president to directly implement policies in a number of areas.

The proposals also call for eliminating job protections for thousands of government employees, who could then be replaced by political appointees.

The document labels the FBI a "bloated, arrogant, increasingly lawless organization". It calls for drastic overhauls of this and several other federal agencies, as well as the complete elimination of the Department of Education.

The Republican party platform has absorbed many - but not all - of these ideas.

It includes a proposal to "declassify government records, root out wrongdoers, and fire corrupt employees". It pledges to slash regulation and government spending, and explicitly calls for closing the Department of Education.

But it stops short of proposing a sweeping overhaul of federal agencies as outlined in Project 2025.

Abortion and family

The mentions of abortion in Project 2025 - there are about 200 of them - have sparked some of the most contentious debate.

The document does not call for a an outright nationwide abortion ban - and Trump says he would not sign such a law.

However, it proposes withdrawing the abortion pill mifepristone from the market, and using existing but little-enforced laws to stop the drug being sent through the post.

Harris said during the presidential debate: "Understand, in his Project 2025 there would be a national monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages."

That appears to be a reference to proposals in the document to bolster data collection on abortion.

More generally, the document suggests that the department of Health and Human Services should "maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family".

On abortion at least, the document differs fairly substantially from the Republican platform, which only mentions the word "abortion" once. The platform says abortion laws should be left to individual states and that late-term abortions (which it does not define) should be banned.

It adds that that access to prenatal care, birth control and in-vitro fertilisation should be protected. The party platform makes no mention of cracking down on the distribution of mifepristone.

Immigration

EPA Migrants at the US southern border wall in Juarez City, Mexico
EPA

Increased funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border - one of Trump's signature proposals in 2016 - is proposed in the document.

Project 2025 also proposes dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and combining it with other immigration enforcement units in other agencies, creating a much larger and more powerful border policing operation.

Other proposals include eliminating visa categories for crime and human trafficking victims, increasing fees on immigrants and allowing fast-tracked applications for migrants who pay a premium.

Not all of those details are repeated in the Republican party platform, but the overall headlines are similar - the party is promising to implement the "largest deportation programme in American history".

Climate and economy

The document proposes slashing federal money for research and investment in renewable energy, and calls for the next president to "stop the war on oil and natural gas".

Carbon-reduction goals would be replaced by efforts to increase energy production and energy security.

The paper sets out two competing visions on tariffs, and is divided on whether the next president should try to boost free trade or raise barriers to imports.

But the economic advisers suggest that a second Trump administration should slash corporate and income taxes, abolish the Federal Reserve and even consider a return to gold-backed currency.

The GOP party platform does not go as far as Project 2025 in these policy areas. The platform instead talks of bringing down inflation and drilling for oil to reduce energy costs, but is thin on specific policy proposals.

And Trump himself has come out in favour of raising tariffs on imported goods.

Tech and education

Under the proposals, pornography would be banned, and tech and telecoms companies that allow access would be shut down.

The document calls for school choice and parental control over schools, and takes aim at what it calls "woke propaganda".

It proposes to eliminate a long list of terms from all laws and federal regulations, including "sexual orientation", "gender equality", "abortion" and "reproductive rights".

Project 2025 aims to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs in schools and government departments as part of what it describes as a wider crackdown on "woke" ideology.

The proposals in this policy area are broadly reflected in the Republican platform, which in addition to calling for the abolishing the Department of Education, aims to boost school choice and parental control over education and criticises what the party calls the "inappropriate political indoctrination of our children".

The plan's uncertain future

Prior to the swirling controversy around the proposals, Project 2025 was backed by a $22m (£17m) budget.

It includes strategies for implementing policies immediately after the presidential inauguration in January 2025, such as the creation of a database of conservative loyalists to fill government positions, and a programme to train those new workers.

But with the Trump campaign seeking to distance themselves from the project, its future is in doubt - even if many of its core ideas seem likely to shape policy in a hypothetical second Trump administration.

At the same time, many of the proposals would likely face immediate legal challenges from Trump's opponents if implemented.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do