Perspective — October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Don Briggs (right) and U.S. senator Robert Adley embrace at a cocktail party hosted by the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association (LOGA), one of the most influential lobby groups in the state. Briggs is the founder and president of LOGA, while Adley is a former board member of LOGA who until last year owned Pelican Gas Management. Adley  sponsored the energy industry’s 2012 legacy-lawsuit legislation in the upper chamber.

Don Briggs (right) and state senator Robert Adley embrace at a cocktail party hosted by the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association (LOGA), one of the most influential lobby groups in the state. Briggs is the founder and president of LOGA, while Adley is a former board member of LOGA who until last year owned Pelican Gas Management. Adley sponsored the energy industry’s 2012 legacy-lawsuit legislation in the upper chamber. © Samuel James


Who took on the Standard Oil men

And whipped their ass
Just like he promised he’d do?
Ain’t no Standard Oil men gonna run this state
Gonna be run by little folks like me and you
—“Kingfish,” Randy Newman
 

In this month’s issue of Harper’s, I trace the oil-and-gas industry’s long history as Louisiana’s dominant political power. I traveled to the state earlier this year to report on legacy lawsuits, which have been brought by landowners against energy companies for historic contamination of properties — often from a drilling byproduct euphemistically referred to by the oil companies as “brine” — that had been leased to produce oil and gas. Since 2003, the landowners have been winning large judgments against ExxonMobil, Shell, and others, prompting the firms to lobby the state legislature, with considerable success, to restrict the suits. The Louisiana industry’s ultimate goal — one its counterpart in Mississippi has already achieved — is to move legacy cases out of the courts and have them heard by state regulators, with which the sector has had long and intimate ties.

In Baton Rouge I met with some of the state’s most powerful lobbyists, among them Don Briggs, the cantankerous but immensely likable head of the Louisiana Oil & Gas Association (trial lawyers, he told me, are “fucking with my members”), and Ginger Sawyer of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, who is equally amiable but known also for toughness and savvy. Briggs and Sawyer give the industry plenty of political firepower at home — he has been a ferocious opponent of government regulation, while she has helped oil companies win numerous tax breaks and exemptions.

The battles they’ve fought within the state have in turn been mirrored on the national stage, with Louisiana’s unceasingly pro-oil congressional delegation acting as de facto industry lobbyists. This dynamic has been playing out for decades, but particularly so during the 1970s and 1980s, when Louisiana politicians played key roles in winning numerous still-extant exemptions for oil companies from federal regulations imposed by Congress in response to public concern about the environment.

One example was the fight over the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which empowered the EPA for the first time to regulate hazardous waste. But in the aftermath of the act’s passage in 1976, industry pressure led the agency to propose that oil and gas waste be classified in a special category of “nonhazardous wastes” that were monitored far more loosely. In 1980, Congress passed legislation that maintained the exemption, though it did direct the EPA to conduct a study on the matter. The agency didn’t begin work on the study for five years, and then only after a small non-profit, the Alaska Center for the Environment, won a lawsuit that forced it to comply. In 1988, the EPA finally issued a report to Congress that identified numerous public-health risks posed by oilfield waste — though the agency concluded that tighter regulation under RCRA was “not warranted.” A 1989 New Orleans Times-Picayune story estimated that American oil companies collectively saved $6.7 billion annually thanks to the exemption. “[This] does not make sense from an environmental perspective,” a government official said anonymously to the newspaper. “Oil interests . . . wanted the exemption. They got the exemption.”

Many politicians aided the energy industry during this period, but none more than a pair of Louisiana Democrats, John Breaux and J. Bennett Johnston. Breaux was a congressman and then a senator who in the latter capacity served as co-chair of the congressional oil-and-gas caucus and played a central role in passing legislation that promoted domestic energy production. Breaux consistently supported anti-environmental legislation, including legislation promoting road construction in national forests and cutting programs to support renewable energy.

Johnston, meanwhile, has probably had as much influence on modern American energy legislation as any other individual. He served in the Louisiana state legislature for eight years beginning in 1964, and then in the U.S. Senate from 1972 until 1997, a period that included a lengthy stretch as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Johnston was the key Democratic author of 1978 legislation that eliminated price ceilings on natural gas, and a chief advocate for a 1995 bill that expanded the right of companies to drill in deep water.*

* Since retiring from the Senate, Johnston has lobbied for energy interests, and has also served as a board member for Chevron and as a policy adviser to the Heartland Institute, an information clearinghouse for climate-change denial. Breaux, too, turned to lobbying upon retirement, with his clients including various energy interests, among them Shell and America’s Natural Gas Alliance. Last year The Hill named him one of the beltway’s top lobbyists.

Other Louisiana politicians and officials have maintained similarly porous boundaries between business and policy. After the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010, Scott Angelle, then head of the Department of Natural Resources, the state agency with chief responsibility for oversight of the energy industry, founded a coalition to oppose new federal regulations. Meanwhile, Mary Landrieu was one of only four Democrats in the U.S. Senate to join with Republicans last year to preserve $24 billion in oil-industry tax breaks. This year, Republican senator David Vitter has led various attacks on the EPA, while Louisiana’s eight-member congressional delegation has, with the exception of New Orleans Democrat Cedric Richmond, aggressively supported the Keystone XL pipeline.

It’s all a long way from the days of Huey Long, who as Louisiana’s governor from 1928 to 1932 was the last state executive to truly confront oil interests. Long tapped into widespread resentment against big business, especially Standard Oil and its allies in the political establishment. “If they got to leave,” he said after Standard Oil threatened to cease operating in the state, “they can go to Hell and stay there.” The political and economic elite tried to impeach Long after he proposed a five-cent-per-barrel tax on the production of refined oil to help fund social programs, but he fought them off with the support of the poor and went on to be elected as a U.S. senator, serving for a year before being assassinated by the son-in-law of a political enemy.

Nowadays, Louisiana Republicans embrace the oil-and-gas industry on ideological grounds, while Democrats champion it as an economic driver and job creator. Their common ground on the subject was perhaps best summed up by Johnston a few years ago in an interview reflecting on his political career. “There’s some things you can do with your states, and some things you can’t,” he said. “In Louisiana . . . you got to be pro oil and gas.”

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

Commentary November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

Shaky Foundations

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Postcard October 16, 2013, 8:00 am

The Most Cajun Place on Earth

A trip to one of the properties at issue in Louisiana’s oil-pollution lawsuits 

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

October 2018

Checkpoint Nation

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Checkpoint Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Laura Sandoval threaded her way through idling taxis and men selling bottles of water toward the entrance of the Cordova International Bridge, which links Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, to El Paso, Texas. Earlier that day, a bright Saturday in December 2012, Sandoval had crossed over to Juárez to console a friend whose wife had recently died. She had brought him a few items he had requested—eye drops, the chimichangas from Allsup’s he liked—and now that her care package had been delivered, she was in a hurry to get back to the Texas side, where she’d left her car. She had a three-hour drive to reach home, in the mountains in New Mexico, and she hated driving in the dark.

Sandoval took her place in the long line of people waiting to have their passports checked by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). When it was her turn, she handed her American passport to a customs officer and smiled amicably, waiting for him to wave her through. But the officer said she had been randomly selected for additional screening. Sandoval was led to a secondary inspection area nearby, where two more officers patted her down. Another walked toward her with a drug-sniffing dog, which grew agitated as it came closer, barking and then circling her legs. Because the dog had “alerted,” the officer said, Sandoval would now have to undergo another inspection.

Checkpoint on I-35 near Encinal, Texas (detail) © Gabriella Demczuk
Article
The Printed Word in Peril·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February, at an event at the 92nd Street Y’s Unterberg Poetry Center in New York, while sharing the stage with my fellow British writer Martin Amis and discussing the impact of screen-based reading and bidirectional digital media on the Republic of Letters, I threw this query out to an audience that I estimate was about three hundred strong: “Have any of you been reading anything by Norman Mailer in the past year?” After a while, one hand went up, then another tentatively semi-elevated. Frankly I was surprised it was that many. Of course, there are good reasons why Mailer in particular should suffer posthumous obscurity with such alacrity: his brand of male essentialist braggadocio is arguably extraneous in the age of Trump, Weinstein, and fourth-wave feminism. Moreover, Mailer’s brilliance, such as it was, seemed, even at the time he wrote, to be sparks struck by a steely intellect against the tortuous rocks of a particular age, even though he labored tirelessly to the very end, principally as the booster of his own reputation.

It’s also true that, as J. G. Ballard sagely remarked, for a writer, death is always a career move, and for most of us the move is a demotion, as we’re simultaneously lowered into the grave and our works into the dustbin. But having noted all of the above, it remains the case that Mailer’s death coincided with another far greater extinction: that of the literary milieu in which he’d come to prominence and been sustained for decades. It’s a milieu that I hesitate to identify entirely with what’s understood by the ringing phrase “the Republic of Letters,” even though the overlap between the two was once great indeed; and I cannot be alone in wondering what will remain of the latter once the former, which not long ago seemed so very solid, has melted into air.

What I do feel isolated in—if not entirely alone in—is my determination, as a novelist, essayist, and journalist, not to rage against the dying of literature’s light, although it’s surprising how little of this there is, but merely to examine the great technological discontinuity of our era, as we pivot from the wave to the particle, the fractal to the fungible, and the mechanical to the computable. I first began consciously responding, as a literary practitioner, to the manifold impacts of ­BDDM in the early 2000s—although, being the age I am, I have been feeling its effects throughout my working life—and I first started to write and speak publicly about it around a decade ago. Initially I had the impression I was being heard out, if reluctantly, but as the years have passed, my attempts to limn the shape of this epochal transformation have been met increasingly with outrage, and even abuse, in particular from my fellow writers.

As for my attempts to express the impact of the screen on the page, on the actual pages of literary novels, I now understand that these were altogether irrelevant to the requirement of the age that everything be easier, faster, and slicker in order to compel the attention of screen viewers. It strikes me that we’re now suffering collectively from a “tyranny of the virtual,” since we find ourselves unable to look away from the screens that mediate not just print but, increasingly, reality itself.

Photograph (detail) by Ellen Cantor from her Prior Pleasures series © The artist. Courtesy dnj Gallery, Santa Monica, California
Article
Nothing but Gifts·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

If necessity is the stern but respectable mother of invention, then perhaps desperation is the derelict father of subterfuge. That was certainly the case when I moved to Seattle in 1979.

Though I’d lived there twice during the previous five years, I wasn’t prepared for the economic boom I found upon this latest arrival. Not only had rent increased sharply in all but the most destitute neighborhoods, landlords now routinely demanded first, last, and a hefty security deposit, which meant I was short by about fifty percent. Over the first week or so, I watched with mounting anxiety as food, gas, and lodging expenses reduced the meager half I did have to a severely deficient third. To make matters even more nerve-racking, I was relocating with my nine-year-old son, Ezra. More than my well-being was at stake.

A veteran of cold, solitary starts in strange cities, I knew our best hope wasn’t the classifieds, and certainly not an agency, but the serendipity of the streets—handmade for rent signs, crowded bulletin boards in laundromats and corner grocery stores, passersby on the sidewalk; I had to exploit every opportunity that might present itself, no matter how oblique or improbable. In Eastlake, at the edge of Lake Union between downtown Seattle and the University District, I spied a shabby but vacant one-story house on the corner of a block that was obviously undergoing transition—overgrown lots and foundation remnants where other houses once stood—and that had at least one permanent feature most right-minded people would find forbidding: an elevated section of Interstate 5 just across the street, attended by the incessant roar of cars and trucks. The house needed a new roof, a couple of coats of paint, and, judging by what Ezra and I could detect during a furtive inspection, major repair work inside, including replacing damaged plaster-and-lath walls with sheetrock. All of this, from my standpoint, meant that I might have found a solution to my dilemma.

The next step was locating the owner, a roundabout process that eventually required a trip to the tax assessor’s office. I called the person listed on the rolls and made an appointment. Then came the moment of truth, or, more precisely, untruth, when dire circumstance begot strategic deception. I’d never renovated so much as a closet, but that didn’t stop me from declaring confidently that I possessed both the skills and the willingness to restore the entire place to a presentable—and, therefore, rentable—state in exchange for being able to live there for free, with the length of stay to be determined as work progressed. To my immense relief, the pretense was well received. Indeed, the owner also seemed relieved, if a bit surprised, that he’d have seemingly trustworthy tenants; homeless people who camped beneath the freeway, he explained, had repeatedly broken into the house and used it for all manner of depravity. Telling myself that inspired charlatanry is superior to mundane trespassing—especially this instance of charlatanry, which would yield some actual good—I accepted the keys from my new landlord.

Photograph (detail) © Larry Towell/Magnum Photos
Article
Among Britain’s Anti-Semites·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

This is the story of how the institutions of British Jewry went to war with Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party. Corbyn is another feather in the wind of populism and a fragmentation of the old consensus and politesse. He was elected to the leadership by the party membership in 2015, and no one was more surprised than he. Between 1997 and 2010, Corbyn voted against his own party 428 times. He existed as an ideal, a rebuke to the Blairite leadership, and the only wise man on a ship of fools. His schtick is that of a weary, kindly, socialist Father Christmas, dragged from his vegetable patch to create a utopia almost against his will. But in 2015 the ideal became, reluctantly, flesh. Satirists mock him as Jesus Christ, and this is apt. But only just. He courts sainthood, and if you are very cynical you might say that, like Christ, he shows Jews what they should be. He once sat on the floor of a crowded train, though he was offered a first-class seat, possibly as a private act of penance to those who had, at one time or another, had no seat on a train.

When Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, the British media, who are used to punching socialists, crawled over his record and found much to alarm the tiny Jewish community of 260,000. Corbyn called Hez­bollah “friends” and said Hamas, also his “friends,” were devoted “to long-term peace and social justice.” (He later said he regretted using that language.) He invited the Islamist leader Raed Salah, who has accused Jews of killing Christian children to drink their blood, to Parliament, and opposed his extradition. Corbyn is also a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and a former chair of Stop the War, at whose rallies they chant, “From the river to the sea / Palestine will be free.” (There is no rhyme for what will happen to the Jewish population in this paradise.) He was an early supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its global campaign to delegitimize Israel and, through the right of return for Palestinians, end its existence as a Jewish state. (His office now maintains that he does not support BDS. The official Labour Party position is for a two-state solution.) In the most recent general election, only 13 percent of British Jews intended to vote Labour.

Corbyn freed something. The scandals bloomed, swiftly. In 2016 Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford West, was suspended from the party for sharing a Facebook post that suggested Israel be relocated to the United States. She apologized publicly, was reinstated, and is now a shadow women and equalities minister. Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London and a political supporter of Corbyn, appeared on the radio to defend Shah and said, “When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.” For this comment, Livingstone was suspended from the party.

A protest against anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in Parliament Square, London, March 26, 2018 (detail) © Yui Mok/PA Images/Getty Images

Chance that a country to which the U.S. sells arms is cited by Amnesty International for torturing its citizens:

1 in 2

A newly discovered lemur (Avahi cleesei) was named after the comedian John Cleese.

Kavanaugh is confirmed; Earth’s governments are given 12 years to get climate change under control; Bansky trolls Sotheby’s

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today