Most WUWT readers know Joltin Joe Romm by his trademark over the top rhetoric and his outright hatred of skeptics on parade every day at his Center for American Progress blog. Most of us have learned to ignore it, because he’s simply pushing a company brand.
That said, Master Resource has this interesting story today; it seems Joe was endorsing the nastiest energy company in history, as told by someone who was an employee, Robert Bradley Jr..
From Master Resource:
It is a common refrain in headlines at Joe Romm’s Climate Progress:
- “Koch-Fueled Americans for Prosperity Takes Credit for Bullying GOP Lawmakers Into Climate Denial” (Emilee Piece: December 8, 2011);
- “Koch-Fueled Denial Backfires: Independents, Other Republicans Split With Tea-Party Extremists on Global Warming” (Romm: December 2, 2012); and
- “Koch-Fueled Americans for Prosperity Spends $2.4 Million on Solyndra Attack Ad (VIDEO)” (Stephen Lacey: November 28, 2011).
Smearing and innuendo is hardly fair play. But in this case, Joe Romm has something embarrassing to hide. Just as Koch Industries might be his least favorite company, Enron was his darling company.
Specifically, Romm was not only a cheerleader of Enron (Enron is “a company I greatly respect,” Romm would say). He was also an unpaid consultant and collaborator with the infamously fraudulent division, Enron Energy Services (EES), purveyor of energy efficiency service in (gamed) long-term contracts.
It is timely to reestablish the linkage between Joe Romm and once-mighty Enron Corporation, a company which went bankrupt ten years ago this month. Perhaps this history will help the combustible Romm to deal with the arguments more and funding links less. (Besides, would he like for his critics to bring in the funding link between George Soros and Center for American Progress?)
Some Romm Enron Quotations
Read the rest here at Master Resource
Nice to see the repost (thanks Anthony!), and thanks to readers for adding to the historical record. EnRomm is a name that might just stick.
I do not know for a fact that Romm’s nonprofit received money from Enron. But given all the work he did which gave an environmental ‘A’ grade to at least some of EES’s (fraudulent) agreements, had he asked for a contribution, he would have gotten it (that’s how the company operated)!
I will investigate for the last book in my Enron inspired trilogy on political capitalism, which will cover Enron and the post-Enron years. It could get worse for Romm, particularly if the company walked him through how they booked their contracts–think ‘mark-to-model’.
I recently posted verbatim the Kyoto memo from Enron’s climate lobbyist, John Palmisano, that readers might be interested in reading: http://www.masterresource.org/2011/12/palmisano-kyoto-memo-10/. Palmisano was sort of our Romm-in-residence.
Keep the comments coming!
– Rob Bradley
@ur momisugly John,
” Ken Lay helped Al get his carbon business going.”
Was it quid pro quo? Was Al Gore not the primary negotiator on behalf of the United States for Kyoto?
Oh yeah and who pulled the US out of Kyoto…hmmm…oh yeah that’s right Kenny Boy’s good friend G.W.
I wonder if Time will re-do this piece from 2002
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,192920,00.html
Oh, and since Animal Farm was an allegory about the evils of Socialism…is it ironic that Al Gore and Allegory sound alike…or is that a simile…I am so confused…and don’t even get me started on the Al Gore Love Story connections!
Andrew, nobody ‘pulled us out of Kyoto’. We were never in it. Al Gore signed the accord but it had zero, zilch meaning since Reid, the Democrat Senate Leader, had already indicated that Kyoto would get zero votes for ratification. Clinton let Gore sign it so Gore could use it for campaign purposes.
@ur momisugly Rhoda Ramirez
Oops my bad. Sorry about that.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Kyoto_Protocol_and_the_United_States
COP-6 Negotiations, The Hague
The November 2000 COP-6 meeting in The Hague was the last negotiation session on the Kyoto Protocol in which the United States participated. After President George W. Bush became President in January 2001, he rejected the Kyoto Protocol and opted out of participation in Kyoto-related negotiations.
http://www.eoearth.org/profile/Petersaundry/
Andrew says:
December 19, 2011 at 5:29 pm. We should re-read Animal Farm…..
You said it…..
I did two days ago….It is scary how much of it applies to this issue….
Remember when Squealer gets caught repainting one of the Seven Laws of Animalism…. You could imagine Joe Romm up there on the ladder rewriting a few bits of history….. “Carbon Dioxide creates Global Warming” gets changed to “Carbon Dioxide creates Global Warming and Cooling and Climate Change and Climate Disruption”…. Finally it just becomes “Carbon Dioxide is Evil”….
Or when Napoleon get Squealer to tell the Animals that Snowball wasn’t actually a hero but he was an agent of farmer Jones…. Watch the Squealers over at Joe’s site… they’ll be re-writing this little piece of Enron history…. Seems Joe just can’t pick the honest side…
@ur momisugly Harpo
That’s a reference to Marx, not Oprah right?
Isn’t this whole article effectively an ad-hominem?
I have no sympathy or shared views with the guy, and find his rhetoric utterly objectionable, but I don’t see this post advancing the scientific debate any.
just for the record, Goldman Sachs seems to be sort of relocating to the centre of carbon trading and are being courted it would seem:
23 Nov: UK Telegraph: Graham Ruddick: ‘Rare murals’ hinder Goldman Sachs expansion in London
Goldman Sachs’ plans to create a major new headquarters in the City have been hindered by a bizarre debate about the quality of murals on the front of the building the bank wants to develop.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/8909231/Rare-murals-hinder-Goldman-Sachs-expansion-in-London.html
20 Dec: UK Mirror: Jason Beattie: MPs blast tax chief for ‘cosy deals with big firms’
BRITAIN’s top taxman was today attacked for failing to collect £25billion of revenue and letting big companies off paying their bills in full.
The Public Accounts Committee said Dave Hartnett bent rules for the likes of Goldman Sachs, which had an £8million bill waived…
Banking giant Goldman Sachs was allowed to skip a multi-million pound interest bill on unpaid tax on bonuses after Mr Hartnett was wrongly advised there was a “legal impediment” to collecting it.
The potential cost to the taxpayer is officially put at £8 million but the committee was given evidence from a whistleblower that the sum could be as high as £20 million.
In its report the MPs expressed astonishment that HMRC “chose to depart from normal governance procedures” by allowing the same senior officials to both negotiate and approve such deals.
Worse, it said, the Goldman deal was done “without legal advice” or an official note being taken of the meeting, with officials relying on the firm’s records….
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/12/20/mps-blast-tax-chief-for-cosy-deals-with-big-firms-115875-23648120/
9 Dec: CNBC: Lawyer Who Revealed Goldman’s UK Tax Deal Could Be Fired: Report
A solicitor employed at UK internal revenue service, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is facing disciplinary action, which could include being fired from his position, and possible legal action for blowing the whistle on a deal which saw Goldman Sachs being let off from paying 10 million pounds ($15.6 million) in tax, according to British newspaper The Guardian…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45609195?__source=google%7Ceditorspicks%7C&par=google
Kevin Butler says:
December 19, 2011 at 11:09 am
So why does anyone listen to them now?
I can make my own mistakes; I don’t need ‘experts’ to make them for me.
I saved Enron’s Statement on Climate Change from its post-bankruptcy website – reposted at CA here http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2006/05/enronclimatechange.pdf .
@ur momisugly Pat, I recall Goldman’s UK operation threatened got move to Spain if they didn’t get a tax break a couple of years ago….
That said, London seems to be running a PR campaign regarding renewables (see the dateline of this story)…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-power-acdc-idUSTRE7BJ0PW20111220
IMHO, Osama Bin Leverage is still hiding in a cubicle somewhere in London!
Speaking of Goldman, here is the latest…
Goldman Takes Client Abuse To Next Level: Closes, And Reopens, Copper And Zinc Recommendations At Massive Losses
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/goldman-takes-client-abuse-next-level-closes-and-reopens-copper-and-zinc-recommendations-massiv
Note: Transmissipn towers and substation components are usually zinc plated (dipped). Copper is used for the grounding grids, transformer windings and generator windings. Now to keep an eye on aluminum plays (transmission and distribution conductors).
This ‘bears’ (pardon the pun) watching.
@Steve McIntyre says: on December 20, 2011 at 6:16 am
I love the statement “lack of scientific certainty does not justify inaction”. No one is certain the world is going to end, but we got to stop it now!
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/200485-google-invests-in-california-solar-project
The company is partnering with investment firm KKR, which launched a new venture Tuesday to provide additional equity investment in the project. KKR said it was the firm’s first investment in renewable energy in the United States.
Cleantech Funds Listing
http://www.colleripmanagement.com/news/CleantechFundslisting.html
Carbon Connections
“Carbon Connections is based at the University of East Anglia, recognised as a world leading research centre for environmental sciences. It already has a well established Carbon Reduction programme (CRed), which was set up as a direct result of the UEA’s focus on outreach activity: enabling research to achieve results. Carbon Connections is an investment body, set up by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to seek out, encourage and invest in carbon-saving innovation either through technological advance or behavioural change.”
Web: http://www.carbon-connections.org
Go to page 50, item 9…
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/s/proxy-2011/images/Goldman_Sachs-Proxy2011.pdf
@ur momisugly john
That is good stuff and will most likely come back to bite Goldman. Kinda funny, they are ‘hiding’ behind their 2005 Environmental Policy Framework as one of their justification for not supporting Shareholder proposal #9. In 2005 the Goldman Sachs CEO was Henry Paulson who left Goldman in 2006 to become the Sec of the Treasury. Paulson had replaced former Goldman CEO Jon Corzine…
We can go back to another former Goldman CEO, Robert Rubin, who as Sec of the Treasury was instrumental in pushing through the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act…which eventually contributed to the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae issues.
People need to connect some of these dots: Goldman Sachs executives, their various roles in politics…what they do after they leave Goldman Sachs…and some of their other colleagues including:
David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management
Rajat Gupta
Anil Kumar
Raj Rajaratnam
Robert Rubin…and his Enron connection
Also, those SEC Guidelines referred to in the Goldman Sachs proxy…somebody explain how those guidelines might negatively impact Al Gore and David Blood’s company…had they chosen to domicile in the USA…
But then again, what do I know…
“The more I know, the less I understand” – Don Henley from ‘The Heart of the Matter’
Andrew
@ur momisugly andrew,
Did you notice that the date of the proxy statement was April, 2011? Wait till the next one comes out…
Also, If there was any communication between Goldman and East Anglia things will get interesting as East Anglia denied any contact or funding.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/goldman_sachs_correspondence_and
Dermot O’Logical says:
December 20, 2011 at 1:47 am
“Isn’t this whole article effectively an ad-hominem?
I have no sympathy or shared views with the guy, and find his rhetoric utterly objectionable, but I don’t see this post advancing the scientific debate any.”
Regarding this post ‘advancing the scientific debate’…
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2011/0211eisenhower.shtml
While continuing to respect discovery and scientific research, he said, “We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Read up on the dangers Eisenhower warned us about.
Regarding ad-hominem attacks:
Has there been any attempts in this ‘article’ to negate the Truth? Has sarcasm been directed at a particular person? Was it done to discredit their arguments? If so, then you would be correct…right?
Pointing out that somebody is wrong and they are acting unprofessional is not considered an ad-hominem attack, or is it?
I don’t believe laughing at someone’s expense qualifies either.
Here’s the thing… I visit Joe’s Progressive site often…. His team does a great job of pointing out alot of the BS in Washington and from the shady candidates the Republican party is throwing out.
(Btw, Ron Paul is the only one of these people that I would even consider voting for. And I’m not voting for Obama just like I didn’t the first time)
That said, about this argument…. I’ve viewed this site for many months now. The truth is that regardless of what is said, we’re not getting off fossil fuels anytime soon. Which really makes alot of the bickering pointless. There has been some valuable information shared here just as there is on some of the progressive blogs. Both sides have some fair arguments just as both sides have a lot of lobbying and dishonesty. The thing is that I think I was better off when I accepted that everything now is about politics and there is so much BS thrown around that it’s better to take any argument with a grain of salt and just go about my day.
“Read up on the dangers Eisenhower warned us about.”
Eisenhower also warned us about the dangers of the military-industrial complex.
Andrew says:
December 20, 2011 at 12:45 pm
[[…]] Was it done to discredit their arguments? [[…]]
That was what I took from the post – something along the lines of “he was wrong about that, so how could he be right about this?”. Not that he had any credibility in my eyes anyway, but that is discrediting the person, not the argument that person is presenting.
@Brian,
Here is an outstanding must read piece done yesterday that involves de-bunking Associated Press ‘fact checkers’…
http://dailybail.com/home/corporate-media-fails-again-ap-fact-check-repeats-zombie-lie.html
Some of the comments are priceless too, especially Cheyenne’s. And yes, the good folks there are wise to what is happening regarding climate fraud (among others) especially the financial issues involved.
@ur momisugly Brian
All valid points, and personally I like a lot of Ron Paul’s message, I am just not sold on the messenger. He kinda reminds me of the eccentric uncle…he makes some good points, is fun to have around, but you really don’t want to introduce him to the ‘in-laws’…which to me is not a quality I would like in my President.
@ur momisugly Dermot O’Logical
Pretty much everyone that has ever opened their mouth was wrong, at least a few times. So clearly Romm qualifies, just because he is human. Pointing out that ‘a given’ person is wrong… repeatedly… doesn’t qualify as an ad hominem attack. I think…but I have not been ‘peer reviewed’…