[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer, on WNYC. Now, we turn to our Climate Story of the Week, which we do every Tuesday on the show. Last Tuesday, we spoke with climate activist Bill McKibben about a meeting Former President Donald Trump hosted at Mar-a-Lago with oil executives. Trump reportedly, if you haven't heard this yet, told the execs he would immediately roll back dozens of environmental regulations in exchange for $1 billion, that's billion, with a B, in campaign donations.

That meeting happened in early April. Now Senate Democrats have launched two investigations into the alleged quid pro quo offer. Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Sheldon Whitehouse, and the Senate Finance Committee Chair, Ron Wyden, have sent letters to the oil companies, accusing them of engaging in a quid pro quo with Trump, and requesting additional details about the meeting.

The joint inquiry is the second examination of that fundraising dinner. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who sits on the House Oversight Committee, is seeking similar information from the companies, but the Democrats in the Senate, where they have the majority, might have more of a chance of getting to the bottom of what happened at that dinner. Despite the scrutiny, Trump is apparently undeterred from courting big oil.

Last Wednesday, he attended a fundraiser for MAGA Inc., a super PAC, that was hosted by three oil executives at a five-star hotel in Houston. Joining us now to break down all this is Dharna Noor, fossil fuels and climate reporter at The Guardian US. Dharna, welcome to WNYC. Thank you for coming on.

Dharna Noor: Thanks for having me. It's an honor to be here.

Brian Lehrer: You write, "That the biggest motivation for oil and gas companies to back Trump appears to be in the tax system, with about $100 billion in tax breaks for the industry at stake, should Joe Biden be reelected in November's election." Can you explain the issue with the tax breaks? A lot of them have to do with drilling, right?

Dharna Noor: Yes. This was based on a story that my colleague Ollie Milman and I wrote with help from Friends of the Earth, the climate advocacy and research group. Essentially, we looked at some of the ways that the oil industry, including folks who we know were represented at that meeting at Mar-a-Lago, could benefit from Trump tax breaks. These are both ones that he put forth in 2017, that could expire before then, without his intervention. Then, also, general tax breaks that they either want to protect or see go into effect.

Some of them are drilling-related and some of them are general, tax policy on big business, with impacts on fossil fuel extraction, specifically. One of them just, for instance, is something that we know both Chevron and ConocoPhillips lobbied for, two big oil companies, of course, they both had representatives at the Mar-a-Lago dinner, and they have both lobbied for a deduction for what's called Intangible Drilling Costs, which, really simply is just the non-salvageable cost of drilling, like wages, repairs, and supplies.

That's a majority of the costs that we put into drilling in the United States. It's one of the largest tax breaks available to the US oil companies. It basically lets companies deduct or expense most of the costs of drilling new wells in the country. These companies basically lobbied to be able to deduct more of those costs from their costs upfront, saving them lots and lots of money on expansion. Then, other lobbying has centered on these more general tax breaks.

For instance, we know that ExxonMobil lobbied for this really obscure, little-known bill that restore a bonus depreciation deduction to its full value, basically would allow big oil to avoid this new tax from Biden, establishing a minimum corporate tax. Again, some of these are really oil-specific, and then other ones are major taxes on big businesses that oil companies, being big businesses, would like to avert, if they can.

Brian Lehrer: Do we know who was at Mar-a-Lago for that meeting in April where the billion-dollar figure was reportedly mentioned, or who Trump met with last Wednesday, which I referred to in the intro?

Dharna Noor: Yes. We know that it was more than 20 oil bosses who were at the Mar-a-Lago meeting, according to The Post. Some of them were from the Exxons and Chevrons of the world, the household oil companies that you might know from seeing their names even on gas stations, and things like this. Then, there were others who were from smaller oil companies that focus on specific sectors of the drilling or fossil fuel economies.

That's companies like Cheniere, EQT, ones that might not be household names, but are really, really important in the fossil fuel economy. We also know that executives from two of the companies who were reportedly at the Mar-a-Lago meeting, or represented at the Mar-a-Lago meeting, rather, were among the hosts of that Wednesday fundraiser. One of them was Harold Hamm. He's the Executive Chairman and Founder of Continental Resources, a big drilling company.

He's a long-time Trump supporter. He's a billionaire. He was reportedly himself at Mar-a-Lago. He was, actually, at one point, a pick for Energy Secretary under Trump's first term, but he turned it down. Trump described him, at this meeting, basically as his oil guru. We know that he's taking quite a lot of advice from him. We also know that at that Wednesday meeting, the chief executive of Occidental Petroleum was present. Her name is Vicki Hollub.

She's recently been criticized really strongly by climate activists for investing in technology that can be thought to be green technology, but really, essentially, is being used in an effort to continue extracting oil and gas, despite, of course, warnings that we must phase out fossil fuels to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Then, we also know that Kelcy Warren was at that meeting. He was another co-host. He's the Executive Chairman of Energy Transfer Partners.

He's also a major, major Trump donor, and he himself has had some scandals over the years. We don't know everyone who was there by name, but we do know quite a few of the companies who were represented, and, in some cases, who the individuals were.

Brian Lehrer: On the tax breaks, you noted in a recent piece, and you were just getting at some of this, that some tax breaks have been around for decades, but a slew of them were passed by the Trump administration in 2017. On lobbyists, they've been visiting lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and Democrats are not left out by them. The Washington Post recently reported that oil executives spent $400 million to lobby the Biden administration just in the last year.

Are these energy companies really sweating who gets elected, or does all their money still buy them a lot of political influence on both sides of the aisle?

Dharna Noor: I think this is a really good question. We know that the fossil fuel industry has really thrived under Biden. We know that exports, for instance, of liquified natural gas are now higher from the US than they ever have been before. The US is now the top exporter of liquified natural gas. We know that, despite many of his promises, Biden has allowed the continued drilling on public lands.

He has tied some of his climate policies to essentially these massive write-offs for the oil industry, so supported the oil industry at the same time that he called for a more serious climate policy. There's really no, I think, excuse that can be made for the way that the oil industry has been treated under President Biden. However, I think that, really, the industry would prefer Trump because he's been even friendlier to their interests, even more pro-business, less interested in any clamp-down.

I think that that's, honestly, especially true for not what we might call big oil, not the Exxons, not the Chevrons, but in some cases, even more true for the small oil companies. Again, those are the companies that were largely represented at Mar-a-Lago. They focus on one part of the oil sector, like drilling in specifics, or something like this. They are often really not held to account in international fora, like the UN climate talks, and things like this, so they're less likely to make these buzzy climate pledges.

They might be more threatened by regulations on certain parts of the fossil fuel economy. If you take auto emissions, for instance, a really major oil company that does everything in this oil, gas, and petrochemical world, might not be all that threatened for standards that are trying to clamp down on gas car usage, but if you, specifically are working on, say, fracking, or one specific little aspect of the industry, you might be more threatened by those regulations. You might not have a plan B to move into plastics, or something like this.

Overall, what I think and what many experts have said is that the oil industry might prefer Trump. Although if viewers, or listeners, rather, are interested in answering this question further, I would definitely recommend taking a look at some of the documents from a recent probe from the Senate Budget Committee and the House Oversight Committee, which really shed light on the way that the industry, and especially the big oil players have been talking out of both sides of their mouth here, have essentially been lobbying publicly for one kind of energy policy, and then, behind the scenes, hoping for another one.

I think there are many things that would stay the same, but on average, I think Trump would be even more beneficial for the industry.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we can take a few phone calls here, on our Climate Story of the Week today, with Dharna Noor, Fossil Fuels and Climate Reporter for The Guardian US, as we talk about that reported meeting at Mar-a-Lago, in April, as a centerpiece of this conversation, with fossil fuel company executives, at which, reportedly, Donald Trump asked them for a combined $1 billion in campaign donations, in exchange for exactly what is still being reported, and that's part of what we're talking about.

212-433-WNYC. If you have a question or a comment for Dharna Noor, from The Guardian, 212-433-9692, call or text. Dharna, in their letters to the companies, senators Whitehouse and Wyden have asked for copies of any draft executive orders, regulatory proposals, or other policy-related documents that the companies may have created "for the purpose of potential use in a Trump administration."

Politico did report that the oil execs had actually drafted up executive orders to be signed on day one of a potential Trump presidency. We'll recall that Trump had that line a few months ago, where he said, "Would I be a dictator? Only on day one, and only to do two things, build that wall, and drill, drill, drill." Have we seen any of that come to light? Are you aware of any actual documents that are draft executive orders for day one of a Trump presidency, written by oil companies?

Dharna Noor: I have not seen those executive orders, but we do know about some of them, from Politico. We know, for instance, that some of these executive orders were aimed at pushing natural gas exports. Again, gas exports have really been booming under the Biden administration. The thought of any increase in exports is really alarming, to say the least. We've heard about cutting drilling costs.

Presumably, that means both actually slashing the cost of drilling, and also, as I mentioned earlier, the ability to recover more of those costs from taxes, write off more of those costs. We also know that increasing offshore leases for oil drilling has been a major, major focus of the Trump administration's promises to the oil industry. That's according to Politico's reporting, based on their conversations with energy executives with direct knowledge of that work.

Then, relatedly, what we also know is that Trump has been studying this document from the Heritage Foundation, that many of your listeners have probably heard of. This is Project 2025. Essentially, this was a way that the Heritage Foundation-- This really far-right think tank, that's very well known in extremely conservative circles. They convened a number of conservative groups to outline a wishlist for what a Republican presidency, presumably, they're specifically looking at Trump as the nominee, would mean for all kinds of issues.

They've written chapters on everything, from attacking a woman's right to choose, or a person's right to choose, to the increased attacks on renewable energy. I think that that's another really good place to look if you're wondering what the industry is really looking for, from the Trump administration.

Brian Lehrer: Listener writes, "Help, please. Isn't this what lobbyists do? Obviously, I'm not happy about this, but how is this exceptional?" What would you say to that listener?

Dharna Noor: I think that it's really true that there's nothing new about fossil fuel executives lobbying really, really aggressively to protect their own interests. Obviously, in some ways, private companies exist to protect their own interests, to make profits, to make profits for their executives, for their shareholders. I do think that there are new degrees to this that we could see, and, in some cases, are seeing, from the oil industry.

The other thing that is new, frankly, is that-- Of course, this is not brand new, but every day, there are new climate impacts that are reaching people around the world. 25 years ago, when we were looking at the oil industry lobbying, both Democrats and Republicans, to protect their own interests, we didn't have quite the same level of knowledge about the way that those fossil fuels had fueled specific climate disasters, had fueled specific heat waves, hurricanes, floods, and things like this.

We have more knowledge of that than ever, and those impacts are becoming more frequent and more severe. I think that if we look at that landscape, these purportedly quid pro quo relationships could be even worse to examine. Of course, corporations have always been lobbying to protect their own interests, but I do think that something that can result in better protections for those companies, in worse treatment for the regulatory bodies that are supposed to be ruling over them, it could make the situation a whole lot worse.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call. Jamie, in Chelsea, you're on WNYC. Hi, Jamie.

Jamie: Hello. Good morning. Thank you for taking my call. Very quickly, I don't understand how any of this is legal, if it's not even criminal. You have the oil people negotiating with a person who they're acting like they're president, and they've never stopped being president. They're making Biden into a cipher. Even more important, they're having the will of 7 million voters, I think, or more, who voted for Biden, and did not vote for Trump, and their interest in climate and climate change-- Just not even on the table.

Brian Lehrer: I'm not sure I understand fully the premise of what you're saying, because Trump is not in power now. He is not making policy now, Biden is. This is clearly a relationship-building exercise ongoing between Trump and his allies in the oil industry, or the oil industry executives and their ally, who might be the next president, Donald Trump. Nevertheless, Dharna, let me ask you a part of Jamie's question, the first part, which is-- How is this legal?

I think that's what the Democrats in the Senate are investigating. Campaign donations, when you have an interest in something, are legal, but where is the line between that and something that might be considered, I don't know, a bribe or some illegal quid pro quo under the law?

Dharna Noor: The question is whether or not this was illegal. As you said, there's really nothing that prevents oil companies from even directly asking for their interest to be protected. We are not sure exactly what the phrasing from Trump's looked like at this meeting. For instance, it's one thing to say, "Give me a million dollars," and then also to say, "When I am elected, I will do X, Y, Z."

It's another thing to say, "If you give me a billion dollars, then I will overturn X, Y, Z environmental regulations." In addition to the probes from Democratic senators and Congress people, we know, at The Guardian, that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, this is a really influential legal watchdog, they led the recent attempt to force Trump off the presidential ballot in Colorado. We know that they're looking into this.

The legality of this is really under question. If it turns out that what was done was legal, and we still have an issue with the ethics at play here, then maybe that says something about the need for better regulations and campaign finance. I think that either way, there are many more questions to get into here, as we learn more details.

Brian Lehrer: Catherine, in New Rochelle, you're on WNYC. Hi, Catherine.

Catherine: Hi. My question was whether you know whether Mr. Trump, in his conversation with the oil executives, in which it's clear he offered to exchange legislation for their campaign contributions, whether he also suggested that the resulting savings to them should be shared most with the consumers at the pump, rather than with the oil executives and their shareholders?

Dharna Noor: We do not know the answer to this question. Based on the recent alleged price gouging from the industry amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, based on the way that they have laid off many members of their workforce and said that they could not afford to maintain that level of workforce while giving their chief executives big payouts, based on the way that they have prioritized payouts to their shareholders--

Again, I'm saying this based on not having been at the meeting, based on only having read The Post's reporting and digging into it a little bit further, but I would be very surprised if they were prioritizing cost savings for those at the pump. Although there might be some of that, oil companies need to keep prices low sometimes, in order to protect their social license. I guess I can only speak from what we know, about their past behavior. Based on that, I would say that they're probably looking out for themselves and for their executives.

Brian Lehrer: Catherine, thank you for your call, and that's where we're going to have to leave it for our Climate Story of the Week, for this week. We thank Dharna Noor, fossil fuels and climate reporter at The Guardian US. Thank you for filling us in as you did.

Dharna Noor: Thanks so much for having me, Brian.

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.