Here’s how much Democrats get paid to shill for fossil fuels
Two former Democratic lawmakers made six-figure salaries for falsely promoting methane gas as a climate solution, tax documents seen by HEATED show.
In January 2022, only a few years after leaving the elected seat she held for six years, former Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota got a new job: convincing climate-concerned liberals to love the fossil fuel industry.
“It’s clear we have an existential threat to the planet,” said Heitkamp, in a December 2022 commercial for the methane gas lobbying group Natural Allies For a Clean Energy Future. “We should be doing everything that we can to help other countries do what we did, which is dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions by using natural gas.”
The ad—titled “Real Talk with Heidi Heitkamp”—was one of a handful of public relations jobs Heitkamp did that year for Natural Allies, some of which she did alongside former Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Together, the notoriously moderate Democrats wrote a sponsored article in Politico claiming that “natural gas is accelerating our clean-energy future,” and an op-ed in Newsweek declaring that methane gas can “actually achieve our shared global climate goals faster.” Landrieu also did her own “Real Talk” commercial in March 2022.
For these ads and op-eds, Heitkamp was paid $185,266 and Landrieu was paid $210,690 in 2022, according to IRS 990 tax documents obtained by the Energy and Policy Institute and seen by HEATED. The documents show payments made to Heidi Heitkamp Inc. and to Landrieu’s consulting firm VNF Solutions.
It’s unclear if these positions represented full-time jobs; both Heitkamp and Landrieu were hired as members of Natural Allies’ “Leadership Council” in early 2022. According to a press release about the hires, the Leadership Council seeks “to bring greater awareness to the foundational role natural gas must play in transitioning to a clean energy future.” Neither Heitkamp nor Landrieu responded to HEATED’s request for comment.
Whatever the case, the numbers are a rare glimpse into the lucrative business of greenwashing the fossil fuel industry. Natural Allies is run and funded entirely by fossil fuel companies, including Williams, TC Energy, Kinder Morgan, National Fuel Gas, Southern Company Gas, and Cheniere Energy.
“It's not every day we get to see the price tag of a former U.S. senator’s advocacy,” said Charlie Spatz, a senior researcher at the Energy and Policy Institute.
Spatz said the numbers also highlight one of the reasons it may be so hard to pass truly effective climate policy in Congress.
“It's sending a message to current Senators that maybe you shouldn't be so harsh on the fossil fuel industry, if they're going to take care of you after you finish,” he said.
A six-figure salary to spread climate misinformation
With each passing year, the science on methane gas pollution and climate change becomes more damning. A recently revised analysis from Robert Warren Howarth, a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell, found that greenhouse gas emissions from liquified methane gas “are larger than those from domestically produced coal, ranging from 18% to 185% greater for the average cruise distance of an [liquified methane gas] tanker.”
At the same time, with each passing year, more and more former Democratic lawmakers are lining up to tout methane gas as “climate-friendly” in exchange for a paycheck from Natural Allies, which is currently running a seven-figure campaign to target young, liberal, and Black and Latino voters “as effectively as we have messaged to the right.”
In addition to Heitkamp and Landrieu, former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, former Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan, and former Florida Congressman Kendrick Meek all accepted positions with Natural Allies in 2023.
Those former lawmakers’ salaries were not disclosed on Natural Allies’s 2022 tax forms, as they were not yet hired by the organization. And it’s unclear if they will be disclosed on future forms, as the IRS only requires that non-profits disclose the five contractors with the highest salaries over $100,000.
However much they are making, they are spreading messages about methane gas that climate scientists have roundly decried as misleading.
“Their claims are all either extremely vague or disproved with middle-school-level science,” said Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at Project Drawdown, who previously worked at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
“Using natural gas warms the climate. Period, full stop,” said Andrew Dessler, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. “There is no world in which natural gas is a long-term ‘solution’ to the climate problem.”
Natural Allies cites multiple “independent studies” to support its claim that methane gas is the best way to solve the climate crisis. But, as we reported last year, all of those studies were funded at least in part by fossil fuel interests, and none were published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Actual peer-reviewed science with no industry backing has shown the opposite of what Natural Allies claims. According to a 2021 systematic review of the scientific literature on methane gas, increasing investments in the fossil fuel carries a long-term risk of delaying the clean energy transition and worsening the climate crisis. That’s because investing in further natural gas development “could lock-out emerging renewable technologies for extended periods.”
Building new gas pipelines, LNG terminals, and gas-fired power plants “pose a particularly great risk for carbon lock-ins,” scientists wrote this year in the journal Nature Energy.
What Natural Allies is doing is called “solutions denial,” a common form of climate misinformation, as we previously reported:
“It's an absolute tried-and-tested argument within the disinformation playbook to constantly create more interim milestones before we achieve what a real necessary transition looks like,” said [Jennie] King, who works at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. “So taxpayer money [goes] into creating new dependencies on [fossil fuels], which ultimately in the long term, make it much harder for us to achieve an actual clean energy transition.”
But former Democratic lawmakers and mainstream media are still more than willing to spread the misinformation coming from Natural Allies, so long as Natural Allies is willing to pay for it. Since 2020, Natural Allies has spent $10 million on a national PR campaign targeting Democratic voters, including more than $4 million to place ads in E&E News and Politico newsletters, Axios, Newsweek, Vox, the Wall Street Journal, and across cable news stations, according to reporting from the Guardian and Floodlight.
These campaigns are effective, in part, because it is very difficult to tell who is behind them. Readers of these news outlets may not recognize, as we uncovered last year, that Natural Allies’ ads are a form of fossil fuel industry climate disinformation. And that is the real price of Heitkamp and Landrieu’s sell out: a deception not measured in dollars, but in the degrees threatening our livable climate.
Further reading
Politico and Axios defend running misleading natural gas ads. HEATED, February 2023.
Key quote: “It is not up to us to decide what is factually accurate or what is not factually accurate,” Politico executive vice president Cally Stolbach Baute told HEATED. “We frankly respect our readers enough to be fully transparent with them on our advertising and encourage them to evaluate our journalism on its merit and its accuracy.”How the gas industry aims to rebrand as ‘clean’ energy to appeal to Black and Latino voters. Floodlight and The Guardian, June 2022.
Key quote: “Success for the natural gas industry will be rooted in whether we can message to the left and the Democratic base of Black and Latino and age 18-34 voters as effectively as we have messaged to the right,” read one early strategy document.The methane gas industry is trying to codify misinformation into law. HEATED, May 2023.
Key quote: “The phenomenon started in Europe [in 2022], when the European Parliament voted to label certain uses of natural gas as “green.” That meant billions of dollars that were intended to fund climate-friendly projects could legally be used for methane power plants and terminals. Now, industry climate misinformation has also started making its way into U.S. state law—albeit in slightly different ways.”
Catch of the day: We have a very special guest today from the Atkin clan: Mason!
Reader Thomas (aka Emily’s dad) says Mason is Emily’s other brother.
Want to see your furry (or non-furry!) friend in HEATED? It might take a little while, but we WILL get to yours eventually! Just send a picture and some words to catchoftheday@heated.world.
One particularly concerning aspect is that Sen. Mary Landrieu's brother Mitch Landrieu was, up until a few weeks ago, the senior presidential advisor responsible for implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. He stepped down to act as co-chair of Biden's 2024 re-election campaign. I'm not aware of any specific cases where infrastructure-bill funding was used to facilitate more gas infrastructure, although it might be worth digging into some of the hydrogen-related funding to see if there's anything suspicious in there. Still a big potential conflict of interest to have someone so close to the person in charge of federal infrastructure investment to be directly on the gas-industry-lobbying payroll.
The moment I read the headline for this post in my inbox, even before scrolling down to read anything else, the thought hit me: "Heidi Heitkamp." Sure enough, an inch or two farther down the email, there she was, a former U.S. senator from the state where I've lived most of my life, in the preview for the methane industry video.
What you learned about Heidi Heitkamp was new (great reporting, as always) but not the least bit surprising. Heitkamp's been a dig-baby-dig, drill-baby-drill, burn-baby-burn, all-of-the-above-energy, fossil-fuels shill for years and years. She's also been an enemy to the majority of efforts, even modest ones, to protect the environment. Thank goodness Biden didn't select her for a cabinet position, which he was seriously considering before he took the oath of office. As I said in a post of my own, I didn’t want her type of thinking anywhere near a position where she could influence Biden’s decision-making, not even in a a less-influential cabinet post.
As for Democrats in general, what you've reported here is not surprising, either. I was a lifelong Dem who voted a straight ticket in every election since I became eligible to vote... until about 10 years ago. That's when I realized too many Democrats are neoliberals, cozied up to big business at the expense of working people, and that they often are, at best, just slightly less awful options compared to the GOP candidates they face. Sadly, this is especially true on environment-, sustainability- and climate-related issues.