National Association of Manufacturers
Manufacturing trade lobby; ExxonMobil is a member.
§ 1 · Background & fossil-fuel ties
The National Association of Manufacturers, or NAM, has been around for almost 130 years to address regulation of manufacturing by the federal government. It says that it represents “small businesses to global leaders,” but nearly 75 percent of its board members represent large transnational companies, including major fossil fuel, petrochemical, pipeline, and utility interests.
These companies include ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, and ConocoPhillips, as well as other large companies Dow, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Toyota, Microsoft, Eli Lilly, General Mills, Alcoa, and U.S. Steel. One of NAM’s board members is billionaire Harold G. Hamm, the founder and chair of oil producer Continental Resources. And the vice president of Energy Transfer, a midstream energy company, sits on NAM’s board.
Further, NAM created a project called the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (MAP), whose stated goal was to “bring attention to and push back on” more than two dozen lawsuits accusing the industry of spreading doubt about rising global temperatures. But MAP took $550,000 from BP’s American subsidiary, according to the New Republic.
NAM has filed an amicus brief in support of the fossil fuel industry ahead of the major Suncor v. Boulder U.S. Supreme Court case. Formally, the case concerns whether federal law precludes state-law claims. Practically, the ruling could determine whether communities may use state courts to seek compensation from fossil-fuel companies for alleged climate deception and resulting harms. Ironically, Exxon is a defendant in the case, and Exxon itself disclosed between $100,000 to $499,999 in support to NAM—raising questions as to the independence of the trade group. Does NAM really represent small business, or is it just a front for large oil companies like Exxon?
§ 2 · Record of fronting
In 1989, NAM formed the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), whose mission appears to be to oppose the very idea that climate change is happening because of the burning of fossil fuels. GCC was stacked with the largest burners of fossil fuels and its goal was to discredit the science behind climate change. When the GCC spun off “independently,’’ in 1992, Exxon was a founding member of the organization.
Throughout its history, Nam has been taking pro-fossil fuel positions such as opposing federal limits on carbon pollution, welcoming the Trump Administration’s reconsideration of the Clean Power Plan and questioned the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority in regulating greenhouse gases.
NAM also defended fracking, telling a U.S. senate subcommittee that the Obama Administration waged, “an all-out assault to shut down domestic production of American oil and natural gas and, in particular, targeting the use of hydraulic fracturing.”
NAM also attacks lawsuits seeking to hold its backers ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell responsible for allegedly deceiving the public about the climate consequences of their products. NAM’s own annual report says, “NAM is pushing back against politically motivated climate change litigation.”
Recently, the association filed briefs supporting fossil fuel defendants in cases brought by Baltimore, Boulder and other communities. Its argument is that climate change must be addressed nationally, and not through state consumer-protection, nuisance or damages laws that could force individual companies to answer for their own conduct.
§ 3 · The cover story, debunked
“The narrative of this litigation—that there is some widespread “campaign of deception”—is undermined by the litigation itself. The complaints recognize the U.S. Government’s knowledge of and public discourse over climate change starting in the 1960s and increasing in the past 40 years.”
NAM in its amicus brief filed in the Suncor v. Boulder case says climate change is real and that people knew about it. But it says nothing to address the legal issue at hand, which is: what did companies know about climate change, and was what they said deceptive?
“Here, Boulder seeks to subject only two companies to liability for its climate change harms. This ever-changing list of defendants that engage in different aspects of the energy industry highlights the fact that imposing liability on any group of defendants that a city, state, or other local government chooses to name lacks any principled basis.”
A lawsuit doesn’t have to go after every company for a liability claim. That’s not how the legal system works. A lawsuit depends on conduct and what can be proven. Just because two defendants are being sued does not mean the underlying conduct hasn’t occurred. Further, Suncor v. Boulder isn’t the only case where energy companies are being sued for damages associated with climate change.
“Indeed, the lawyers and other advocates orchestrating this litigation have acknowledged outside of court that the desired effect of the litigation is to impose costs on consumers for the worldwide production, promotion, sale and use of fuel.”
The claim that holding polluters accountable for the costs of climate change is an attack on consumers is false. Companies often arbitrarily raise prices. And plaintiffs like Boulder are not suing people for driving cars or heating their homes. Even a little cost-transfer doesn’t erase the responsibility of a corporation. The real issue is: if companies do pass on costs to consumers because of something bad that they did, why don’t executives, who make lots of money at the expense of public health, pay for it instead?