1
PERSUASIVE POWER:
RHETORIC OF RISK IN SUSTAINAINABILITY IN
THE NUCLEAR POWER LOBBY
______
A Thesis
Presented to
The Honors Tutorial College
Ohio University
______
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation from the Honors Tutorial College with the degree of
Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Studies
______
by
Kristen H. Wahlers
April 2021
2
This thesis has been approved by
The Honors Tutorial College and the Department of Environmental Studies
______
Dr. Julie White Professor, Political Science Thesis Advisor
______
Dr. Stephen Scanlan Director of Studies, Environmental Studies
______
Dr. Donal Skinner Dean, Honors Tutorial College
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to the following faculty members, for supporting me and my academic endeavors: Dr. Julie White, Dr. Steve Scanlan, and Dr. Geoff Buckley.
I would also like to thank my friends and family for always listening to me and supporting me through my thesis writing and research process, I could not have done it without you.
4
Table of Contents: Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..………5 Chapter 1: Art of the Argument………………………………..………….……………...……...16 Chapter 2: Problem and Method…………………………………..……………………………..21 Chapter 3: Results………………………………………..………………………………………27 Chapter 4: Analysis and Discussion…………………………………………..…………………50 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….64 Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………...69 Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………73
5
Introduction: Tumultuous History of Nuclear Power in the US
The popularity of nuclear energy is pretty much split down the middle in the United
States, with a Gallup Poll citing in 2019 that the percentage of Americans in favor of its use for electricity and percentage of Americans opposed is split down the middle. (Reinhart, 2021).
Nuclear energy is an energy source that flies under the radar and people may write it off as too dangerous to consider. Nuclear energy occupies its own niche in the spectrum of energy choices: it isn’t a renewable energy source, but it also isn’t a fossil fuel. This complicates introducing the nuclear power question: the terrain of debate is really structured as a question of fossils verses renewables with nuclear options absent or peripheral. Former President Donald Trump had no clear stance on the issue, and President Joe Biden, a man early in his presidential tenure, is starting to take a more serious look at the energy source.
In February 2021, a massive snow storm hit the United States. For places in the Midwest and other northern states, this was just another winter storm. However, catastrophe hit in Texas and millions of residents lost power, heat, and clean water due to freezing temperatures at power plants causing shutdowns, rolling blackouts, and increased pandemonium among Texans who are not accustomed to this sort of weather. Texas is not supposed to get this kind of extreme weather and its severity and unpredictability is largely a consequence of anthropogenic climate change.
As the Earth’s jet stream weakens due to a loss of Arctic sea ice, extreme weather is more likely to travel further and stay longer (Alfred Wegener Institute, 2019). So, a storm that might have only hit the northern states traveled much further south. Texas was woefully underprepared-- their energy operates on a state-independent energy grid, meaning places in the United States that are still functioning cannot transport backup energy to the state. This event has caused many to be vocal on both sides of the aisle regarding renewable energy versus oil and gas (Ferman, 6
2021), but where does this leave nuclear? President Joe Biden is now speaking out for nuclear energy and is advocating for its ability to be a carbon-free, powerful, energy source. He is also advocating for a more connected power grid though the United States. Additionally, prior to the storm, Biden appointed a new commissioner to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, foreshadowing a shake-up and further development of nuclear energy, as it is one of the sources
Biden lists in his climate plan as a future solution for combatting climate change. However, on
January 27, 2021, Biden’s energy secretary nominee, Jennifer Granholm, said in a senate confirmation hearing, that the Administration opposes the use of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste disposal site. (Bandyk, 2021). Critics find it hard to fully trust Biden and his energy plan for nuclear when there does not seem to be a solution for nuclear waste (Gibson, 2021). This seemingly contradictory plan has raised eyebrows and only future will tell when trying to understand how the sitting president truly feels about nuclear energy and what his plans are.
Prior to the election of President Biden, the Democratic primary in late 2019 and early
2020, opinions about nuclear energy from other prominent politicians were heard—and they were extremely divided. According to The Verge, as of September 2019, ten candidates had released climate plans, half of those plans mentioned nuclear energy, and those who mentioned nuclear energy were divided for and against its proliferation (Calma, 2019). Nuclear energy can be taboo in politics. The energy source has been highly contested, but in the era of the “Green
New Deal,” a plan spearheaded by New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that aims to halt climate change and create green jobs among strong stances on climate action, why isn’t nuclear energy considered more? Even when reading about the damaging energy sources in the United States—coal, oil, natural gas—nuclear energy is hardly among those damaging sources… but it also is not included in many people’s solutions to climate change. In the 7 following sections, I will explain the complex—and often difficult to understand—reasons why nuclear energy isn’t on the radar for most politicians and many Americans.
The word “nuclear” evokes a powerful response in people. Some might associate that word with the Cold War, a traumatizing era of tension and uncertainty in the mid-to-late twentieth century, where nuclear war felt imminent. To these people, the word “nuclear” was literally weaponized and understandably invoked fear. To other people, the word nuclear might have some association with domestic energy generation but the legacies of Three-Mile Island and more recently the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, seem to have ensured a public more inclined to see risk than reward in such projects (Reinhart, 2019).
In this thesis, I offer an analysis of discourses of risk around nuclear energy generation. I focus on lobbyists as critical actors in shaping, even if more indirectly, the public conversation.
Specifically, I will focus on the ways lobbyists in a range of energy sectors – coal, natural gas, and nuclear—represent the relative risk and rewards of their sectors. I will also be conducting work with lobbyists who represent “environmental” interests. Interviews are necessary because I define “success” as much more than can be discerned from looking at a voting record. There is a significant body of work on interest group activity that suggests the importance of lobbying as establishing “access” to representatives even more than turning out votes. That is, I think there are important ways in which lobbying as a practice may be shaping or reshaping legislator perspectives even when there is not a vote at stake. I hope to get a sense of how lobbyists are using languages of risk, and their motivations behind the way they speak in their meetings.
A Brief History of Nuclear Energy:
Nuclear energy was discovered in the 1930s by physicist Enrico Fermi in Rome, who had been conducting experiments that showed how neutrons could split atoms. In one of these 8 experiments, he split uranium and found the remaining atoms were much lighter than the original uranium, something that had not happened with other elements. In trying to explain where this loss of mass came from, Lise Meitner concluded that, per Einstein’s theory, the loss in mass was due to a change in energy, proving that the splitting of uranium atoms creates energy, which is now the basis of how nuclear energy works. By 1942, a group of scientists let by Fermi had gathered at the University of Chicago to make a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. On December 2,
1942, they were successful. This discovery has led to the reality in the world as we know it, this reality bringing both good and bad outcomes, and there is no denying that it was an extremely significant and momentous day (United States Department of Energy, 2002).
After this momentous discovery, money and research power of nuclear energy was put into the Manhattan Project, a secret project dedicated to developing a nuclear weapon for the current World War, signaling in its early days the association of the nuclear energy’s power to destroy. This project was successful, and nuclear weapons effectively ended World War II.
With the success of this bomb and the anticipation of further nuclear development, the United
States created the Atomic Energy Commission in 1946 with the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which aimed for peaceful and civil nuclear development. This commission successfully created a nuclear reactor that generated electricity by 1951, with the first full-blown commercial nuclear reactor being completed by 1957. Popularity for nuclear energy has ebbed and flowed through history, and by the 1970s and 1980s, progress slowed significantly in development of commercial nuclear energy usage (United States Department of Energy, 2002).
In 1979, the Three Mile Island Accident occurred in the United States. This accident was a partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania. After this accident, however, popularity of nuclear energy did not decrease in the United States for another three years (Bisconti, 2018). 9
This was because the United States was in an energy crisis, causing a nationwide perception of the need for new plants. Once the energy crisis was over and access to energy was no longer on the public agenda, support for nuclear energy dropped. However, the United States is a big country and a lot of people live nowhere near a nuclear plant (United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 2019). Proximity nuclear accident sites strongly decreases the support for nuclear energy, as was the case for both the Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine and the Fukushima
Daiichi accident in Japan, both accidents occurring with large populations near the accident site
(Bisconti, 2018).
The decrease in popularity in the 1980s and 1990s coincides with the environmental movement of the time, where growing concern over the safety of these nuclear plants became more pronounced. Despite this, by 1991, nuclear energy supplied almost 22 percent of the electricity produced in the United States. This is significant, especially compared to the 2019 statistic of nuclear electric power supplied 8 percent of the energy consumption in the United
States (United States Energy Information Administration, 2020).
The Debate About Nuclear Energy:
Fast-forward into present day, according to the United States Energy Information
Administration, there are 58 commercially operating nuclear power plants in the United States
(United States Energy Information Administration, 2019), with two of those located in Ohio along the shores of Lake Erie. Both plants are owned by Energy Harbor, the Davis-Besse and
Perry 1 power plants, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, employ more than 1,400 people.
These plants are major sources of energy in Ohio and run 94 percent of the time. They generate
14.7 percent of Ohio’s power, and 88 percent of Ohio’s emission-free power. Nuclear energy provides more than half of the United States’ carbon-free electricity, and it avoids more than 470 10 million metric tons of carbon each year (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019), proving that is a clean energy source. On the surface, nuclear energy is appealing. It is relatively clean, reliable, and produces more energy than any other prominent source that it utilized in the United States. With these benefits, however, there are significant drawbacks that to many are far too blaring to ignore.
Regardless of the seemingly simple answer to include nuclear energy in prospective clean energy plans for the United States, there are serious issues that people have with the energy source. The opposition people hold against nuclear energy is complex—many factors go into the criticism of the source and can be difficult to see at face value.
The construction of nuclear plants is incredibly expensive. According to Synapse Energy
Economics, Inc., the cost of building one nuclear power plant can cost up to $8,100/kW
(Schlissel & Biewald, 2008). This number, opposed to the $614k/W (United States Energy
Information Administration, 2020) it costs to build a natural gas generator, has a lot of people wary of the economic impact construction of nuclear plants might have. Although they have a high capacity for generating electricity comparatively, nuclear has a 93.5 percent capacity factor versus natural gas’s 56.8 percent, (this means that 93.5 percent of the year, nuclear plants can operate at maximum power), many people feel this is not an even trade-off with the prohibitively high cost of construction. (Office of Nuclear Energy, 2021) Putting cost aside, another problem people find with nuclear energy is the safety factor.
In an article titled Is Nuclear Power Worth The Risk?, Carolyn Kormann (Kormann,
2019), details the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown following an earthquake that prompted a large tsunami that flooded the plant. This disaster took place on March 11, 2011 and has haunted residents of Okuma, the town that housed the plant, and surrounding towns ever since. The 11 disaster led to radiation that permeated the zone surrounding the plant, causing contamination to everything you could think of: the residents, the topsoil (an element critical in this town as they were largely a farming population) and cattle, to name a few. Following the incident and continuing to this day, people immediately escaped the town and many have yet to return. Of the people who have returned, a majority are elderly—people who were heartbroken to leave their lifelong homes. The first person who returned, Seiichi Idogawa, returned seven years post- disaster, in April 2018. He has worked as a cleanup operator in Okuma since one year after the disaster, hauling contaminated soil out of the area. And while, especially against the backdrop of climate change, nuclear energy can be extremely environmentally appealing—it produces no carbon dioxide—the trauma that many people have gone through because of this energy source makes it hard to justify its proliferation. This piece from The New Yorker is just one of the many pieces detailing the difficulties many face in assimilating back into life post-nuclear disaster.
This is a very tangible detriment to nuclear energy and is a completely valid concern.
So far, the concerns about nuclear energy include the cost and the danger of possible meltdowns while operating. However, there is another very significant concern that deals with the disposal of nuclear waste. This is an issue that troubles a lot of environmentalists. Nuclear waste is extremely toxic, and the uncertainty of how it might behave long term is not to be taken lightly. Many people suggest disposing of this waste in the middle of mountains, or in the desert in the western part of the United States where populations are low. This, however, raises a concern about environmental justice. Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been a highly contested area to be used as a potential disposal site. This is a site located within land designated for indigenous people, but the United States had been fighting to use this land to dispose of toxic nuclear waste. It is no secret that the United States has had an extremely harrowing and 12 discriminatory history with our nation’s indigenous people, often the US government putting the needs to these people last on a list of concerns. Thus, the disposal of nuclear waste not only imposes dangers for possible leaks or catastrophes of their own, but often times the proposed disposal sites infringe of the rights of indigenous people. According to the Congressional
Research Service, the nuclear waste generated in the United States is typically stored on site, with no permanent storage facilities in use (Larson, 2020). This means that if the US continues to build nuclear power plants but does not consider a permanent place to store the waste, this extremely toxic waste will build and eventually we will have nowhere to put it. If we do develop a location to store the waste, how do we transport it safely and how is it stored? These are questions that both critics and supporters alike of nuclear energy feel must be answered before continued development of the energy source. (Holt, 2018)
In Gregory B. Jackzo’s book, Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator, Jackzo presents a compelling argument against nuclear energy as well. Jackzo was the former chairman of the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. His position is what makes this account even more appealing—why would somebody who worked for the regulation of nuclear energy be so against the energy source? Jackzo spends the book describing the unstable nature of these plants and the catastrophic ways one minor accident could cause a plant wide shut down and possibly a nuclear disaster. He was the chairman when the Fukushima disaster happened, and this accident has haunted him, as described in the book. The meltdown caused panic within the Japanese government and Jackzo witnessed this disarray. His main argument against nuclear power, especially if it continues to grow and thousands of plants are built, is that accidents will have a higher probability of happening. As the number of plants increases, if safety standards are not taken more seriously, it is inevitable that accidents will occur more frequently. In 2011, he 13 visited Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska. The visit was prompted by snow melting from the north and flowing down the Missouri River—many were worried that the plant would flood and the United States would face its own Fukushima-esque disaster. Luckily, this did not happen, but Jackzo was not impressed by his visit. The water had come just inches from the plant, and when asked about what were to happen in the event of a disaster, responses were blasé. He was told that failure would not happen, so there is no need to worry about it. This response concerned Jackzo, and he argues that this attitude is popular among nuclear plants.
However, if nuclear energy is ever to become a primary energy source, safety standards need to be rigid and followed closely, there is no room for error in situations like this. Jackzo left his position after being asked to resign so his replacement could be easier to work with and more pro-nuclear. He agreed to leave as he felt the job was wearing on him. But, this brings up an important question: is filling the United States’ commissions and regulatory organizations with those who support nuclear energy really going to benefit anybody in the long run, or is it all just about politics?
If nuclear waste can be so harmful, how is the United States ever going to approve of its use? This is where the research in this paper comes in. Lobbyists for nuclear energy must recognize these glaring criticisms, they are literally about life and death. So, the question remains, how do nuclear lobbies spin this information in their favor, or possibly how do they describe these risks and how are they perceived?
A Personal Connection:
In Spring 2019, I completed an internship on Capitol Hill in for a member of the House of Representatives. In my short time of working in DC for a congressperson, I learned that most of the efforts in the office go into meeting with groups who are advocating for a specific cause. 14
At times, my tiny office would have up to three meetings going on simultaneously. I was answering phone calls and taking messages for lobbyist groups daily, all who called in the hopes of scoring a meeting with a staffer. Our mail consisted of information from these groups and the fellow interns and I would sort through it and distribute the information to the various mailboxes of the staffers in our office. Seeing first-hand how important face to face meetings were for these groups made me realize how impactful they could be. While, yes, your congressperson has a set of ideals that they run their platform on and will generally go along party lines, special interest groups and lobbyists can still make an impact in these offices. Perhaps the staffer working on a bill will push for it harder. Perhaps they will write in legislation that benefits one group over another if they feel it is important enough. Meeting with lobbyists is foundational in a congressional office. They provide literature, context, and often allow staffers to put names and faces to an issue, making them all the more real. Observing this informed my understanding of lawmaking. I no longer only saw it as a cut and dry process where the congressperson knew exactly what to support and nothing would change their mind. People who dedicate their life to a cause can make significant impacts in the decision-making process. I feel that this experience helps give me the assurance and credibility that what I am trying to uncover and observe in this thesis is legitimate and important information.
The rhetoric surrounding nuclear energy must be calculated and clear. It is an extremely contentious energy source with one of the top reasons for support being its cleanliness for the environment, and the top reasons to oppose it being that it is dangerous, unsafe, and the possibilities for accidents and leaks (Bisconti, 2018). So, when these lobbyists meet with the energy staffers, possibly even the congressperson themselves, how do they convey these risks?
The case for nuclear energy cannot simply be reduced to economic calculations as the risks seem 15 differently existential. Yet from an environmental perspective that prioritizes dealing with climate change, the rewards too seem incalculable. It is exactly this incalculability that makes the case for nuclear energy such a revealing case for understanding the politics of risk.
16
Chapter 1: The Art of the Argument
On the question of the role of money in politics Americans live with substantial cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, there is still some general sense that there is a common public interest that rises above the merely private and competing interests of the marketplace, that there are public officials whose personal integrity is unimpeachable, and that there is some kind of shared vision of a collective good life. And yet that somehow coexists with a common preconception is that legislators act not based on their ideals or moral, but rather who is lining their pockets in campaign contributions. There is a lot of money in lobbying as well—many former politicians transition to lobbying after retirement due to the lucrative nature of the business. In an article published by the Atlantic in 2018, ex-Members of Congress can make up to two to three times their ~$170,000 salary when they enter into the lobbying world due to their friendships and connections on the Hill (Berman, 2018). With the big salaries and the exclusive networks lobbyists tap into, it isn’t perhaps surprising that many studies of the work of lobbying and lobbyists are designed to “follow the money.” (Brulle, 2018; Kang, 2015; Craig & Madland,
2014). Here the presumption is that lobbying is a big money industry that uses its big money resources to essentially buy legislative votes. While campaign donations are one important way that lobbyists leverage legislative support, I will argue that reducing lobbying to quid pro quo relationships misses a critically important function of the work of lobbying: the work of making the case for the coincidence of their private interest with the public good.
The Merriam-Webster defines a lobbyist as “one who conducts activities aimed at influencing or swaying public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation.” Lobbyists provide research before important votes, advocate for a certain cause, 17 and ultimately make it their goal to convince a lawmaker to support or denounce an issue. These people are incredibly important because some might argue they are helpful—they do the research and provide you the information needed to make a decision on a topic, and you might even get a free lunch out of them. But others argue that lobbyists can be disingenuous, as the practice is tainted with the large sums of money corporations and businesses pay them for their services.
The role of private interests in shaping the government’s public work is often reduced to “buying votes.” However, despite the importance of the role money might play in drafting and passing legislation, the research portion of lobbying, the meetings that lobbyists hold, and the arguments they offer are also critical aspects of the lobbying process.
I am curious about what happens during the conversations between lobbyists and legislators. More specifically, how do lobbyists articulate the public case for their private interests. Lobbyists typically take very seriously the need to offer legislators a publicly palatable defense of their private interests. In the case of energy lobbyists, this public defense most often circulates around narratives of risk. Is the risk to the public highlighted as global warming? Or is it nuclear proliferation? Is it the loss of jobs? Or is it nuclear contamination? Is it the threat of losing the market for renewables to China or is it another war in the middle east if we can’t secure our own energy needs? Taken together, how do lobbyists navigate languages of public risk to secure their private interests?
It is worth noting at this point that this research is preliminary. This research is not funded or conducted within an extensive enough time frame to be conclusive. But even in this formative stage, my work makes two important contributions. First, it recognizes that practice of political justification is an integral part of the practice of lobbying – it thus resists reducing lobbying to “buying votes.” I see in my interviews the “giving of good reasons” – a critical 18 aspect of the practice of public deliberation and in my view not adequately attended to as part of the practice of lobbying. Secondly, I find rhetorics of comparative risk pervade this practice of reason giving in the context of lobbying. In this research I have completed, I have looked at the way risk is communicated. Risk is one of the biggest factors in any decision-making. Lobbying for a specific energy source requires this admission of risk, or perhaps the admission of comparative risk.
Facts and Falsehoods in the Lobbying Industry
In a piece for Political Science and Politics, former American Political Science
Association (APSA) Congressional Fellow, Lee Drutman attempts to match his own experience against the literatures on lobbying. This perspective is important, because oftentimes it is the congressional staffer, or in this case, the congressional fellow, who take meetings with lobbyists, with their boss, or elected representative, attending meetings only occasionally due to the more strict and busy schedule of a Member of Congress. Most people also do not really know what happens in a congressional office because they only see their representative on the house floor arguing about a bill or casting their vote. What happens inside of an office is instrumental to all of the public things a congressperson does, because it informs them about issues happening in the country and their district, and guides their work moving forward on the Hill.
Drutman describes his role as such: vet amendments to the now Dodd-Frank bill by conferring with outside experts, meaning he took a lot of meetings with lobbyists. In his piece,
Drutman highlights three theories about lobbying: that it is an exchange process, that it is primarily working with allies, and that it is about informative provision and persuasion. Though the idea of quid pro quo, or owing someone a favor after they did one for you, perhaps in a monetary connotation, is a common conception of lobbyists, Drutman writes: “There was not a 19 single meeting that I held in which I was told ahead of time… …that this particular group was an important campaign contributor” (Drutman, 2010, 835). This statement negates the theory that lobbying is an exchange process. In a study conducted between 1999 to 2014, Michael Barber and Mandi Eatough uncovered a link between campaign contributions and whether the interest group’s industry was politicized. In their research, it is shown that groups whose industry is non- politicized (think dairy farming) are more likely to exhibit access-seeking behavior, donating to campaigns whom they hope to gain an audience with and exert influence once put in office, or reelected. Politicized industry groups, such as the gun lobby, are less likely to participate in access-seeking behavior, as Democrats and Republicans have distinct stances on the issue of guns, thus will most likely vote on way or another regardless. (Barber & Eatuough, 2020).
Despite these seemingly opposite recollections of how lobbyists gain an audience with a congressperson or their staffers, it does not mean either account is wrong. While there are norms and somewhat unspoken rules in Congress, ultimately elected officials can act on their own volition and are their own bosses. This is what makes studying lobbyist behavior both difficult and interesting. Drutman notes that the most common type of lobbying activity is information exchange and persuasion (Drutman 2010). In his account, Drutman writes that most of his meetings “involved substantive policy discussion in which lobbyists hoped that by presenting their case in a reasoned way, they could ultimately convince the Senator that their position was good public policy” (Drutman, 2010, 835). While this proves that lobbyists still care about the information exchange, there will obviously always be an agenda to push. This is not a bad thing, because it is the job of a lobbyist to work for a group and convince others of the importance of their group’s work, but it is important to recognize that in any lobbyist meeting, they are there to persuade the staffer or congressperson to vote a certain way or include certain language in a bill. 20
This piece referenced above is one person’s experience and I acknowledge that experiences vary from office to office, and from year to year. There could be elected officials out there that see lobbyists in a completely opposite way, which is why it is crucial to look at the lobbyist’s perspectives on meetings. There might always be politicians who are in office simply because of their connections or money, but lobbyists come from all walks of life and are not in the public eye. The distinction between these two jobs means that while a politician can be picky about who they meet with or only meet with people they deem worth-while, a lobbyist has all the time and energy to meet with whoever might listen to them. This project looks at lobbyists from five different groups who all have varying levels of expertise in their field, and it will give a good array of perspectives of how these people view their jobs and the substance of them.
In a study done by Robert J. Brulle, they examined lobbying expenditures by different energy sources in relation to the increasing discourse surrounding climate change between 2000 and 2016. He found that corporate sectors involved in the production or use of fossil fuel outspent environmental and renewables in a 10:1 ratio (Brulle, 2018). While my thesis emphasizes that spending money does not necessarily correlate with influence, rather it is the conversations that take place, Brulle’s findings demonstrate growing concern by the fossil fuel industry that climate change legislation is going to hurt their business. Brulle emphasizes that renewable and environmental lobbies still spent major sums of money, showing that this difference is not a case of who engages in lobbying practices (Brulle, 2018). As energy-based lobbying increases the conversations are happening more frequently. Lobbying is a powerful business and the growing concern for climate change is threatening tradition energy sources.
21
Chapter 2: Problem and Method
Over the course of this thesis, I interviewed five different lobbyists, all representing different parts of the energy sector. By hearing their different perspectives on how meetings operate, how often these meetings take place and with whom they take place, and the ways they discuss how they convey risk to the person they are meeting with, comparisons can be made between the kind of organization and energy source they represent and their respective answers to these questions. The purpose of this research is to gain a deeper understanding of the lobbying process. As a student and young person, as well as somebody who does not work in lobbying, I do not have a full picture of what lobbying entails. As referenced in the introduction, though I have had some experience in interacting and observing this process of lobbying, it is relatively unknown to me.
Climate change is quickly becoming one of the most pressing and imminent threats to our world. In 2019, The Director of National Intelligence released a Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, of which the environment and climate change was listed as one of these threats. Energy policy, while already incredibly important and influential, will only become more serious as climate change continues to threaten the livelihood of citizens in the
United States. This project aims to understand how this policy is being developed by looking at lobbying groups. Lobbyists are the ones who dedicate their career to pushing for a specific agenda, and when the agenda of energy policy is becoming more and more important, I want to understand the language and usage of different persuasive skills these professionals use to make their point.
Focusing in on the risk is also important, because risk assessment and management is a crucial communication tool. People perceive risk differently, so effective risk communication 22 recognizes these differences and builds on that (United States Environmental Protection Agency
2020). Communicating risk to legislators is important, but not well practiced in the nuclear lobby. In Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Nuclear Reactors: Engineering Success, Public
Relations Failure, Rodney Carlisle writes about how public relations has been a sore spot for the nuclear industry since the 1970s because of the complexity in communicating the risk assessment practices (Carlisle, 1997). Interviewing a nuclear lobbyist allows me to see where this communication is at presently. Risk communication is so crucial, as identified by the
Environmental Protection Agency, so if nuclear power is going to grow as an energy source there needs to be more effective strategies to satisfy those who are apprehensive to the source.
The five organizations I interviewed include the Ohio Coal Association, Ohio Natural
Gas Association, the American Nuclear Society, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the
Sierra Club.
I spoke with Mike Cope, president of the Ohio Coal Association. The Ohio Coal
Association is a non-profit trade association that represents nearly every Ohio coal producer, as well as other members that include suppliers and consultants. They are based in Columbus,
Ohio. Their goal is to promote the advancement of coal as a primary energy source in Ohio.
Their website has an abundance of informational pages and fact sheets that are accessible to the public. When speaking to Cope, I learned that he engages in educational speaking engagements about coal in schools in addition to his work in lobbying for coal energy. Historically, their campaign donations, which started in 2002, mainly go to Republicans from Ohio, with the exception of a couple Democrats from various election cycles.
I spoke with Jimmy Stewart, president of the Ohio Gas Association. The Ohio Gas
Association is located in Columbus, Ohio, and is a non-profit, statewide membership-based 23 association that works to deliver natural gas safely, to provide educational outreach and public awareness to natural gas distribution, and maintain relationships with people in regulatory agencies and elected offices in order to stay on top of the natural gas agenda. The Ohio Gas
Association holds seminars, conferences, and other informational events to improve technical education and training as well. The Ohio Gas Association is dedicated to pipelines and bringing natural gas to homes, not to the actual production of the energy source. They have a yearly
Pipeline Magazine and their website has information for upcoming events, of which there are many. The Ohio Gas Association also has a scholarship program for students who are entering education that will lead them into a career in natural gas.
I also spoke with John Starkey, Director of Government Relations at the American
Nuclear Society. The American Nuclear Society is an organization that embraces nuclear energy and has a mission to advance the development and application of nuclear science. The group is membership-based, with members including individuals, students, and organizations. The group advocates for policies that will further development and use of nuclear science. Their site hosts many interactive and informative pages about nuclear energy, including its use, the safety, and the way nuclear energy works. American Nuclear Society dedicates a lot to students and educational outreach, as they have multiple scholarships to offer and have classroom resources.
I spoke with Brian La Shier, a Washington, D.C. representative for the Union of
Concerned Scientists. The Union of Concerned Scientists is a national nonprofit organization with a mission to use science to solve the planet’s most pressing problems. The group is over 50 years old and has nearly 250 scientists, analysts, policy and communication experts in the organization. Their main focus of concern is climate change, and with that they focus in on sustainable solutions to feed, transport, and power ourselves. They also work to reduce the threat 24 of nuclear war, advance racial and economic equity, and speak out when powerful groups or people try to undermine the value of science to the public. Membership can be for anybody in the public, not just scientists. Their dedication to science translates into a well-organized website that gives many different sources and informational pages for people to learn about a topic, ranging from climate, energy, transportation, food, nuclear weapons, and science and democracy.
I also spoke to Neil Waggoner, the Beyond Coal Campaign Ohio Campaign
Representative, from the Sierra Club, specifically from the Ohio Chapter. The group is the oldest grassroots environmental organization in the United States, being founded in 1892. It is a member-based organization, so they rely on their members from all over the state to support their initiatives. The Ohio Chapter advocates for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and public transit. The group has seven regional, volunteer-driven groups that work on the environmental issues based on their geographic location. These groups host meetings, conservation-oriented activities, outings, campaigns, and educational programs.
These groups were contacted because of their activities in lobbying. Each person I spoke with worked in legislative lobbying and has extensive experience in speaking with legislative staffers and elected officials. I reached out via email to the groups listed, and was put in touch with representatives from the groups. Interviews were conducted over the phone and the calls were recorded upon the consent of the interviewee. I chose to record my interviews so that I could reference back to pull direct quotes and to ensure no possibility of misinterpretation.
Interview questions were broken into a few different sections. These sections were: background and job description, with questions that asked about previous experience and what their job entailed, access, with questions pertaining to who they would typically meet with and the reasoning behind these meetings, structure, which asked questions of what happened during their 25 meetings, and finally substance, or questions about risk and more specific questions about these meetings. Each group was asked a set of the same questions, but there were specific questions that were based on who I was speaking to. For example, I asked the Ohio Coal Association a few different questions than questions that I asked to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Questions were both direct and open-ended, the interview was semi-structured. In developing my approach, I drew from work that establishes the narrative framework for policy analysis as critical and particularly work that focused on the role of risk in these narratives
(Lawlor & Crow, 2018; Gottlieb et. Al. 2018). I aimed to have a conversation with the people that I interviewed, because I wanted authentic and honest answers. By having a conversation, rather than a one-sided conversation, I was able to evoke more honest answers and comments that I might not have been able to get if I was extremely strict to the questions. One of the challenges in this, though, was when there were time-constraints. Some interviews lasted up to an hour or longer, while others were limited to thirty minutes. During the interviews that required a time constraint, questions were more pointed but there was still a good amount of room for conversation and long-winded answers. In Richard Fenno’s classic study of legislative politics, he advocates a “soak and poke,” method (Fenno, 1978)—advising that the best research can be done by immersing oneself with the person they are studying. I share his concern to excavate the “black box” between lobbying access and legislator response. But the “soak and poke” approach was obviously impossible during COVID. In-depth interviewing was thus a second-best methodological alternative – an approach that the significance of lobbying cannot be determined exclusively by counting office visits, counting votes or even counting campaign contributions. Those are certainly important. But lobbying is significant as an act of argumentative persuasion as well. And to understand the role that lobbying plays in shaping 26 discourses around energy and environmental risk, I needed to move beyond questions of access or votes, to understand the narrative framing deployed by lobbyists.
27
Chapter 3: Results
Each person I interviewed for this project offered a unique perspective on what it takes to be a lobbyist, how their background led them to the position they are in, the logistics that go on behind meetings, and how the conversations take place between them and the other party. These interviews were conducted to discover the methods in which lobbyists in the energy or environmental field talk to their audiences, and how they explain the risk associated with their cause. The conversations I had with the following people are important, because if there is going to be somebody so avidly pushing for an energy source, there needs to be an understanding and productive discourse on what the risks might be associated with it and how to deal with these risks. Rarely there is an energy source that is completely risk free, but as climate change worsens and the world is searching for new and improved places to get their energy, understanding and seeing the full picture is crucial for progress. The following pages are documentation, direct quotes, and preliminary analysis from my interviews.
John Starkey – American Nuclear Society
John Starkey is the Director of Government Relations for the American Nuclear Society.
He received an undergraduate degree in finance and started his professional career in finance, eventually ending up at a private equity firm in San Diego that specialized in farm equipment and small renewable energy corporations and companies. Surprisingly he identified this experience as his first introduction to nuclear energy. Starkey grew up in Dallas, Texas and has a family background in oil and gas. However, after serving as a staffer on the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee from 2017 to 2019, he gained interest and expertise in nuclear energy, including the policy and legislative process on the energy source. He spent two years on 28 this committee before moving again to the private sector for a lobbying firm in Washington,
D.C., where the firm did work for the American Nuclear Society. His boss at this lobbying firm eventually became the President of the American Nuclear Society and brought Starkey on as the
Director of Government Relations, which is his current title.
His role typically entails meeting with staff of a congressional office, especially in a time of “heavy hill interaction.” He said he first and foremost targets staffers who work for the member’s relevant committees: those who are on Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittees are particularly important because they are in charge of providing fund for future nuclear development. He said that outside of appropriations, he wants to talk to authorizing committees that develop the language that the appropriators use when pricing the bills. These committees include his former job posting—the Senate Energy and Natural Resource
Committee—as well as the Environmental and Public Works Committee in the Senate, Energy and Commerce, Space, Science and Technology, and the Energy and Water Subcommittees in the House of Representatives. He said most of his work as the Director of Government Relations and thus, a lobbyist, is focused on the committee level, only rarely going to specific congressional offices, more likely if these people need support due to a nuclear power plant in their district.
When questioned about the substance of these meetings, Starkey explicitly identified navigating discourses of risk as one of his primary objectives. Starkey enthusiastically went into the ways he talks about the risk associated with nuclear energy, walking me through what he touches on in his meetings, opening with the quote: “The nuclear waste question is one you’re always going to get… … it’s what the public is most afraid of, it’s what Congress is always worrying about.” He tells people that when nuclear waste is contained and stored properly it 29 poses no risk—he compares the radiation risk from nuclear energy to radiation an average person undergoes daily, such as traveling in an airplane. He even went on to say that when coal is burned it emits more radiation than a nuclear plant and that if a Nuclear Regulatory body of any country were in charge of all coal electricity plants in the country they would shut coal down due to the amount of radiation it releases from its smokestacks.
When talking about what is emitted from nuclear plants, he explained that the steam is
"so clean, in fact, in most cases you can condense it and drink it." He added that nuclear power, which accounts for around twenty percent of electricity in the United States, produces 2,000 tons of waste in a year, an amount he said would not even fill a 3,000-square foot house. Starkey then went on to say that this amount of waste is generated every five minutes by coal energy, with an annual amount of waste totaling 400 million tons—25 thousand tons of this being radioactive, attributed to the uranium and thorium released when burning coal. He finished his comparison to coal by reminding me that about 1,000 coal electrical plants are being planned or built worldwide, despite after 5 decades of nuclear power in the US, all the waste generated would fit into a singular landfill.
Starkey continued explaining what he talks about in discussions about nuclear risk, stating he always tries to drive home 3 points: first, the cost of managing spent nuclear fuel is a marginal cost that is handled well by folks in the nuclear field, second, while still, a way's away in the United States, it is expected that spent nuclear fuel will be recycled and repurposed in more advanced reactor technologies, and third, to remember waste from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) is causing roughly 4 million premature deaths a year due to air pollution and climate change worldwide. 30
Starkey recognizes the role that fossil fuels have played in human history, and acknowledged that the world economy would not be the success story we see today without them, but that it is still important to find better solutions through the technology that we have.
He can get frustrated because he feels the detrimental effects of fossil fuel is what public health and environmentally minded people need to be getting up in arms about, rather than the question of nuclear waste. However, he has come to accept the fear associated with nuclear energy and to recognize the need to frame his arguments in the language of comparative risk.
As our interview continued he spoke more specifically about the American Nuclear
Society and their project called the Radiation Communication Task Force. The task force is a response to the industry’s concern that nuclear regulators in general is not doing that good of a job of quelling fears surrounding nuclear energy. In the task force, they have pulled many people from different backgrounds, such as radiation oncologists, university professors, people who work with advanced reactors, as well as other parts of the industry. The purpose of this task force is to disseminate information and in the case of a nuclear event to offer guidance by providing an educated perspective to the media and the public.
In discussing the task force John Starkey returned to the central role that discourses of risk play: “Risk perception associated with how much radiation a human body can take needs to be put in a language that the public can understand… …there’s background radiation with everything." The task force is designed to formulate this language and understanding and further communicate how often the human body takes radiation, and how small of an effect it has on us, and use this language to communicate both with the public and with people on Capitol Hill.
Specifically, when asked about how he talks about nuclear energy, he said that it is “by far the safest and most robust way of producing large amounts of electricity, they can operate in 31 the most extreme weather conditions,” that uranium is incredibly energy-dense, and compared to fossil fuels, nuclear energy has incredibly low carbon emissions set into the atmosphere. Starkey is optimistic because nuclear energy is "having its time in the sun" due to being paired up in the clean energy mix that Biden has put in his bill, "Back Better Clean Energy Plan," and said that we will have an "exciting next ten years."
Mike Cope – Ohio Coal Association
Mike Cope is the president of the Ohio Coal Association. He is originally from Cadiz,
Ohio, a place he described as "coal country,” and identified himself as connected to the industry through both informal and formal networks. Almost everybody that he knew or someone in their families worked in the coal industry or a business that was dependent on the coal industry. With this being said, he knew the basics about coal but did not know a whole lot else when he began working for the Ohio Coal Association. After working for the Ohio Department of
Transportation for some time, he founded and currently runs a financial consulting company called Key Consulting, LLC. So, in 2017 when he was offered the position to take over the Ohio
Coal Association, he approached the job as a consultant, but grew into the role in a more intimate and involved way because he sees himself as a fast learner and quickly came up to speed on the current coal issues. Cope also has extensive experience in the government and understands how the government works, which he said makes it “easy for me to move over to lobbying (in the
Ohio General Assembly).” He said the company used to have more full-time employees, but as member dues were based on the tonnage of coal mined, and this number had been steadily decreasing, there was not enough money to keep multiple employees. 32
We also began our interview with Cope briefly mentioning the situation in Texas, which was outlined in the introduction. He said that the situation (mass power outages in the freezing temperatures) was “a step-child of risk for the coal country.” This means that he worried relying too heavily on one energy source, and phasing out the usage of coal, is dangerous because of how reliable the source is in any sort of weather situation.
There is no typical day of work for Cope, but a lot of his time is spent on the phone, taking meetings. If something is pending in the General Assembly that his group is interested in, typically a meeting would be set up and he and/or another lobbyist would go in and talk about it to whoever might be able to make a difference. He continued by talking about lobbyists and the reputation that precedes them—he said a lot of people picture lobbyists "going into the back room and trying to cut deals," but affirmed that lobbyists largely just provide a great deal of information to the members of the general assembly about their industry.
When asked about who he works with, Cope identifies both the Ohio General Assembly as well as the United States Congress. He gave an example of working with a Republican senator from Ohio, Rob Portman, on an issue that dealt with the production tax credit, a federal subsidy given to renewable energies, where they wanted to get it to "sunset." Ultimately, they were unsuccessful. Cope works with energy and environment committees, public utilities committees, and anything to do with natural resources, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. He usually meets with people when there is legislation they would like them to consider, or if they request information based on questions they might get from constituents, typically meeting with members who are from areas that have coal production in their district. 33
When asked about whether he had reliable allies in the legislature, Cope laughed, and said he has good relations with both the house and the senate and that they are "very pro-free market approach to things." His organization and the coal industry, in general, is opposed to subsidies, which explains the issue he has with the subsidies given to renewable energy. He said that he has "obviously better rapport amongst the Republicans in both houses than we do with the D's (Democrats). We don't have any negatives with the D’s but our issues are not generally their issues,” explaining that the Democrats typically represent urban areas where the Ohio Coal
Association mainly deals with rural areas. He also said that now, in the federal government, since it is all Democratic majority, there might be a shift in the lobbying power of his group, due to the differing alignment of views. By this, he is referencing the more commonly held view of
Democrats in their support for renewable energy and apprehension to fossil fuels versus
Republican support of more traditional sources of energy, like coal and other fossil fuels.
Most of what Cope does, he considers educational in nature. But he also meets with people to get to know people or to advocate for or against a bill. He said that he tailors information, or content of the meeting, depending on where the member is representing, especially when talking to someone who represents an area with interests in coal or coal in the districts versus one who has no direct stake in coal production, but might be on a committee that handles legislation that might involve coal in one way or another. If he is speaking to a representative who has a coal-fired power plant in their district that is threatening shutdown, for example, he said he would appeal to them by explaining employees at the plant who will lose jobs, emphasizing how closure would harm their constituency.
Given his self-described mission to “educate” the public and its representatives about coal, I asked what he thought were the most pervasive misconceptions in the coal industry. Cope 34 answered by chuckling and saying “Wow, where do I start?” According to Cope the public wrongly considers coal “dirty” and he added that the smoke coming from coal power plant cooling towers is steam, not dirty smoke as the public generally believes. He said that in the last
30 years, the generators have cleaned up 95 percent of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter from coal plants. He conceded that there is still some “stuff” that comes out of these plants, but it is measured and regulated and that the water that comes out of the coal plants is probably cleaner than when it came in. It is worth noting this is an extremely similar argument that John Starkey from the American Nuclear Society used when talking about nuclear waste/emissions. Starkey remarked that you could drink the water that comes out of a nuclear plant and Cope also emphasized the cleanliness of the water from coal-fired plants. This does not insinuate either man is wrong in their characterization, but it demonstrates similar concerns that exist for both sources of energy.
Cope said the public thinks the coal industry is bringing on global warming “single- handedly” and is the worst carbon dioxide emitter out there—which he challenged by claiming automobiles are the worst. By admitting there is still “stuff” that comes from these plants, but rationalizing its regulation, it shows that he understands what comes from coal plants is dirty and harmful. Later in the interview, he acknowledged that climate is real, saying he is not a “climate change denier,” despite also saying about the Texas storms that “they” (he does not specify who
“they” is) are “interestingly enough, blaming it on global warming, or climate change I should say.” He seemed hesitant to fully acknowledge climate change. However, his perspective shifted blame onto other industries and negates the impact the coal industry, both historically and presently, has had on climate change. 35
Tellingly, Cope’s response when I asked about the risks associated with coal power, was to reinterpret my question: The risk, he said, associated with coal energy is that it is phasing out and that too much dependence on one energy source is detrimental to America’s energy production. He said: "If you believe that windmills and solar panels are going to provide the number of gigawatts we need in this country for the next 10 years, then I have some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you." He continued with a pitch for coal energy—stating the source is reliable, resilient, always available, and that it doesn't freeze (referencing a previous statement on the situation in Texas, where he states the natural gas in the pipelines froze, causing the power outages.) When I returned our interview to the specific question, “what are the real risks of coal energy?” he conceded and stated that carbon dioxide is the greatest risk. When asked about how he negotiates this risk factor in conversations with representatives, Cope offered a very nuanced account of risk, rationalizing that because Ohio was a manufacturing giant, the state’s economy has been coal dependent, implying that such economic gains make coal a necessary and worthwhile risk.
Cope recognized that in the public rhetoric surrounding energy coal is typically framed as
“dirty.” This is a powerful enough rhetoric that he recognizes the need to push back against it explicitly: “…if you take out consideration from carbon dioxide, which is a big ask, we [coal] are the safest and most secure form of energy.” Like his colleagues in the nuclear energy industry water has become the signifier of clean and pure and in a familiar message, Cope argued that the water coming out of coal burning power plants is cleaner than it went in. The real risk Cope sees is in the fantasy of renewables, the risk that public will fail to recognize the necessity of coal to maintaining contemporary infrastructure: “You know what would be the greatest thing to happen for coal? Blackouts…. … [It’s] gonna take a real big blackout to get the regular people, as Nixon 36 called them “The Silent Majority,” to wake up, and say ‘we have to have a balanced approach to this thing.’” This “thing” he was referencing is moving to renewable energy sources in the wake of the climate crisis and achieving “Net Zero” (carbon emissions) by 2030.
Cope’s interview reflected little patience with climate activism and often juxtaposed the interests of activists with the economic interests of this “silent majority.” While this position is perhaps predictable given Cope’s work, throughout the interview there were signs that his local fight for coal drew on and echoed the broader politics and divisive rhetorics at the national level during the Trump years. Cope recounted an instance in which he went to the Athens County
Commissioner's office on behalf of a member of the Ohio Coal Association for a meeting to obtain a permit to open a mine around Johnson's Run, a stream in Athens County previously negatively affected by coal mining. At the time of the meeting Johnson’s Run was in the process of being cleaned up. Before going into the meeting, he recalled facing a former commissioner and current activist, and recounted having laughed at her comment on how she could tell he was from the [Ohio] coal association because he had a "suit and tie" on, to which he told me he thought: "well, it's not really a suit… it's a jacket, it's an ensemble." He continued to emphasize the activists he faced in this meeting were all women, a comment I did not prompt. He continued this tangent and emphasized that because Athens County, Ohio is “very poor,” it is not in anybody’s interest to oppose coal energy. He finished by stating there is nothing you can say to
“them” (referring to the activists), saying “it’s a cult” and that you have to look for others who are "open-minded." Cope sees himself as just such an “open-minded” intellect. He described himself as unemotional and pragmatic in the way he talks about coal and the way he faces criticism. He said he listens and tries to understand where they are coming from, remain un- argumentative, and "give them the devil's due." 37
I find this part of the interview important to include, because it gives the impression he does not like to concern himself with the fears people have about coal, rather he chooses to place judgments on their character. While understandable in some ways, he does represent the interests of coal, after all, this disdain for his opponents makes me wonder how he truly makes his case for coal energy and who he is making this case to. By characterizing the activists as a
“cult,” a word that has a severe negative connotation in the United States (Richardson, 1993),
Cope discredits these fears the activists hold. Cults are commonly known for their members blindly following one set of ideals, are thought to be manipulative and use mind control to achieve their agenda (Richardson, 1993). By calling his opponents a cult, not to mention his assurance they were all women which I also find hard to overlook, Cope demonstrated a lack of respect for his opponents who hold fears about coal energy. He told me about how crucial it is to find someone who is open-minded and willing to have an actual conversation. I fear that though he sees himself as one of these open-minded people, his characterization of his opponents leads me to believe he is hypocritical in this sense. Defending oneself is important and holding true to your ideals is admirable, but as a lobbyist it might be wise to listen to the concerns of people and understand where they are coming from.
He finished the interview by emphasizing the need to talk facts (if they are open to listening), talk about how it’s been cleaned and how [the coal industry] has made up for sins of the past, and what technology would be available out there to make it acceptable again. He stated: “If [coal] didn’t produce CO2, and there is some question about mercury and other things, again, and they constantly tell you if you live next to a coal-burning plant you’re going to have asthma, but I think that’s B.S., frankly. You have to have the facts. You have to have the medical information, and you have to have the environmental [information]. Here’s the issue—figures 38 lie and liars figure. So, you’re going to have to have this information from sources that are considered independent." He said this as he follows with the sentiment that support for coal energy must come from the policymakers who will explain this information to their constituencies, not the other way around. He circled back to the emphasis on the harm the automotive industry does, something I can only assume is another major talking point of his in his meetings.
While Cope often steered our conversations away from an explicit conversation about risk, he did imply the reliability of coal made it the surest bet in the industry sector. In speaking about natural gas, he said it has recently become the cheapest form of energy in Ohio. He followed by saying that coal, in his view, will always be the cheapest in the long run because natural gas has “fluctuated a lot more in price than coal ever has.” Although he follows an “all of the above” approach—meaning he does not like to discredit any particular energy source, but rather ask for equal opportunities for each source to thrive in its own right—he maintained that coal is "cheap, reliable, does not freeze in a pipeline, you don't need to build new facilities—they already exist. And it can produce a hell of a lot of electricity in one plant.” He concluded the interview by noting there is no comparison in the amount of energy a coal-fired plant can produce versus a solar farm.
Jimmy Stewart – Ohio Gas Association
Jimmy Stewart is the President of the Ohio Gas Association. Stewart began his career in
Athens, Ohio, in the mid-1990s to sell construction equipment. Eventually, he bought a condominium in town and became more interested in local politics as he felt more invested in it as a homeowner. He ran and won a city council race, which was his first foray into politics. As 39 he climbed through the ranks in Athens City Council and local government, he ran and won as the representative in the Ohio House of Representatives for his district. He served in this position for three terms and then ran for state senator, which he won. He eventually became the
Senate Majority Leader, until mid-2011 where he left this post and took the position he has today as the president of the Ohio Gas Association. He is also on several boards, which include the
Meigs Country Board of Elections, Buckeye Community Health, and is the chairman of the Ohio
Water Development Authority. As a former member of the Athens City Council and the Ohio
State General Assembly, Stewart offers a unique perspective as someone who has both been a recipient of lobbying efforts and is a lobbyist himself.
Before Stewart came on to the Ohio Gas Association, the group did little legislative work.
However, with his hiring, they decided to become more active in the lobbying space and try to have more influence over policy versus working around new regulations that are passed, meaning rather than hearing new regulations and being forced to “deal with it.” The Ohio Gas
Association shifted to a more active role in the legislative space, as Stewart put it have “more control of our own destiny, rather than wait for a train to run over you.” Most of this work is with the Ohio State Legislature, members from all over the state, the Ohio Governor's office, and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, which is a regulatory body for his industry. In the first meeting with somebody, Stewart said he does not usually like to "make an ask," but rather establish a friendly relationship and get to know them—this includes candidates as well as new members of office. He said not everybody does this, but ideally, it is best practice to do so. He said when meeting with legislators and introducing himself, he lets them know who is he and what he does—a former legislator who knows what the other person is going through and represents people who move natural gas from point A to point B. He said this process is no 40 different than the one that anybody would go through when meeting someone new. After getting to know these people, he said it’s important to “figure out what motivates people to make the decisions they make, and once you figure that out … … you have to push the appropriate buttons to make them make the decision you want them to make… … some people are motivated by fear, others by emotion, some by logic, some a combination.” He said his experience in the government has greatly influenced his ability to understand this concept. He continued by saying knowing who he is dealing with helps him a lot in knowing where the hurdles will be.
Stewart emphasized how cheap natural gas is. He told me an anecdote about when natural gas became prominent, it coincided with a time that coal-powered plants were being shut down. He stated people in Ohio feared their electricity bills would skyrocket, but natural gas pulled through and was extremely inexpensive. He stated that despite that natural gas only comes from a handful of counties in eastern Ohio, meeting with people from all over the state of
Ohio is important because the price affects everybody. In comparison to other forms of energy outlined in this chapter, Stewart meets with people based not on if their district produces the form of energy (i.e. natural gas), rather he meets with a wide variety of people because natural gas serves as a prominent energy source all over Ohio, meaning nearly all Ohioans pay for this source of energy.
As our conversation shifted to an explicit discussion of the role of risk assessment in his work, Stewart expressed concern that any discussion of risk must be contextualized and he criticizes the popular media for a failure in this regard: "Virtually no article is ever in context or puts an issue in proportion. Politics, in general, is full of this sort of thing, too." He said that when looking at risk, he frames it in context. He used an illustrative example of radiation: people get radiation every day, but people get nervous when talking about nuclear power 41 concerning radiation. He followed by saying: “If we are talking about regulation of natural gas pipelines … … let’s put it in proper perspective and look at the big picture.” Stewart went on to illustrate his concern for proper perspective: "In Ohio, there have been some very large diameter natural gas pipelines constructed in the last few years, but having said that, there have been large-diameter transmission pipelines in Ohio for many, many decades. You drive across them every day. There are small ones right under your feet… … I'm not suggesting for a minute there doesn't need to be maintenance, there's any number of risk reduction activities that the industry engages in… … do you think that there … … is an incentive not to take care of your assets?" He said there is no incentive to let the pipelines leak, and that there is so much risk in not maintaining these pipelines due to the huge liability aspect. Stewart recounted speaking at a
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, where he was seeking approval for large-diameter pipelines. He remembered people coming out, giving “mostly emotional pleas” against the pipelines, these concerns mostly being about the safety of the pipelines. He found these, particularly the emotional, pleas against pipelines, as he put it, "to some degree, insulting," with these critics owing the people constructing the pipelines an apology for suggesting they are "too stupid, too corrupt, or too inept to safely construct, build, and operate a natural gas pipeline.”
This perspective shifts the outrage of people protesting to the pipelines to the construction workers and engineers who will build them, rather than to the actual natural gas companies who are planning, executing, and most likely, funding, these pipelines. It removes blame and moves the conversation of safety to people hired to carry out plans rather than the ones making them.
However, I do not know the full context and substance of the interactions and this is just my read on the situation. 42
This is a common theme between Stewart and Cope, who when asked about risk, shift blame to other people, mainly activists. Stewart does not acknowledge the risk posed by natural gas pipelines, but instead got angry at those protesting it. Similarly, Cope did not want to acknowledge what the activists he faced were protesting about—rather he shifted blame onto them for not being open-minded enough. This similarity demonstrates the fossil fuel industry does not readily listen to protestors. They take personal offense and do not actually consider what is being said about their industry.
When talking about why natural gas deserves public and legislative support, Stewart said of natural gas that: “it’s a domestic source of energy, when it is combusted the byproducts are two things, water, and carbon dioxide… … to use it directly, meaning bringing it from the well through the pipeline process to someone's house to be used by a natural gas furnace or a natural gas stove requires very, very little energy." He stated that only 10 percent of natural gas's energy would be used up in the process of transporting it. He continued with an explanation of solar panels and the amount of energy and fossil fuels it takes to make solar panels, following with:
“I’m not suggesting that natural gas, like every source of energy, [doesn’t have] upsides and downsides, they all do. But let’s put it in proper context.”
With this, I asked whether he addresses these perceived downsides and if so, how he does this. Stewart answered with: “if a person asks about [fracking, injection wells, pipeline explosions or leaks], you have to address those issues if they do come up,” indicating that they allow the other party to bring these concerns up. He also indicated that there are more than just environmental risks, citing that with coal and nuclear plants the energy source can be stored on- site whereas you cannot do that with natural gas. This implies a disadvantage, or perhaps a risk, for natural gas, because should production of gas need to stop, there is no backup storage to rely 43 on to keep the energy moving. In response to a question on how he might deal with people who ask about these risks, he said he would rationalize that the issues would not happen very often.
The gist of the interview is that he tries to conceptualize risk in proportion to risks one has with everyday activities and emphasizes that every form of energy has its upsides and downsides. He is not an advocate for exclusive use of natural gas, and thinks it would be risky to put all your eggs in one basket—he supports and advocates for a diverse energy portfolio, something Cope also advocates for. I call attention to this similarity because it could signal a threat felt by fossil fuel lobbies, a feeling of being phased out by renewable energy.
Stewart, while providing an important perspective of a legislator turned lobbyist, did not provide much information on how he talks about specific instances of risk. However, compared to the other lobbyists interviewed for the project, many touch on his main point of providing context.
Brian La Shier – Union of Concerned Scientists
Brian La Shier is the Washington, D.C. representative for the Union of Concerned
Scientists, primarily working with federal legislatures, agencies, and staff, and helps to serve as a liaison between the scientists at his organization and the individuals at the government. La Shier has had experience in working in government at both the state and federal levels. He has a
Master's in Environmental Policy. He is responsible for working in the energy and climate space for his group, focusing on resilient infrastructure and other climate topics.
The Union of Concerned Scientists does a lot of work with other non-governmental organizations and academic institutions, as well as congressional office staff, both on the personal offices and with committees. La Shier will typically meet with an office if there is a 44 specific bill or legislation to push, but a lot of times offices will reach out to the Union of
Concerned Scientists to get information or ideas on some legislation, La Shier said: “It’s a two- way relationship, but it’s sort of dictated by what sort of interest there may be around an issue on the hill. But we definitely have our own priorities that we layout in advance, that we hope to draw attention to and engage on."
In discussing La Shier’s assessment of the biggest environmental risks, climate change, he talked about how he is a big proponent of addressing the fossil fuel industry, but he also sees additional risk in the way to do this equitably. He said, “in the past, whenever a new set of technology comes on the scene it’s going to displace people who have historically been employed in the old types of sectors of the economy. So, as the fossil fuel industry sort of phases out, particularly the coal industry, we hope that the people who are currently employed in that industry are able to have an equitable transition into other sectors of the economy and continue to be able to make a living.” When transitioning into a discussion of the nuclear industry, La Shier acknowledged the need for proper nuclear regulation to improve safety. He argued that it is not that nuclear power is not safe, however, there needs to be enhanced oversight. He added that there also needs to be a consideration of the balance between, on the one hand, the economic and the climate benefits of keeping the nuclear power plants running, and the other hand the fact that they are aging without a ready replacement. He ended the talk about nuclear by emphasizing that there are a lot of factors involved, so while the Union of
Concerned Scientists is supportive of nuclear power generally, he drives home that the oversight question must be addressed.
The interview moved to how he would communicate these risk factors, to which La Shier answered by saying, “it’s important to provide context around a risk that people can relate to. So, 45 if you’re talking about climate change, and you keep things really high level and abstract… … and you throw out numbers, that can be really helpful if you’re talking to scientists or maybe regulators… … but if you’re talking to a congressperson’s staff that [the numbers and scientific data] doesn’t mean anything to them, so you if you frame it in a way such as ‘those emissions are occurring, so if you zoom in a bit more, those are going to accrue with climate change, climate contributes to these types of impacts to that particular part of the country that they represent.’”
He said further that emphasizing the risks that climate change might pose to their specific constituents helps communicate these complicated scientific ideas into something palatable. He also employs the use of comparison and looking at what would happen between both scenarios if one thing would happen versus another. By this he means by doing “X” action, the regional economy will be affected in this way, the environmental impacts will change this way, and compare these to what would happen if “X” action is not taken.
When talking about how he speaks to the public versus private interviews, he said it helps to tailor this information because each different group cares about different things. This does not even necessarily mean geographically, but in the legislator's case, they might have different jurisdiction in the lawmaking process, i.e. belonging to different committees. In talking to the public, he said it's important to know the technical competencies of the audience. Diving into the technical and "nitty-gritty" stuff might cause you to lose a lot of people because you don't have the time to explain in the detail necessary as to why this science is significant. However, he acknowledged that "the public is not a monolithic group, so depending on what portion of the public you're talking to you really have to tailor it to your audience."
Tailoring the messaging to his audience might, for example, mean talking about climate change without actually mentioning the words “climate change” -- “you can talk about the 46 impacts, economics, or what is happening on the ground, and you do not need to spend time on climate science.” He said that people who are very directly impacted already understand things like water levels rising. Oftentimes, La Shier emphasizes adaptation and what solutions to this new status quo might be. He also said he focuses a lot on the pragmatic economic argument because although it does not directly have anything to do with climate change, a lot environmentally conscious choices someone can make also benefit their personal finances. He also said that while emotions might play into how people make their own choices and stances on climate change or energy issues, La Shier focuses on the facts and allows the facts to guide people into their own decisions, whether these facts evoke an emotional response or not.
Neil Waggoner – Sierra Club, Ohio Chapter
Neil Waggoner is the senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal
Campaign in Ohio. In this role, he oversees all the Sierra Club’s lobbying and public education efforts around coal and electricity utility regulations, organizing work, communications work, legal efforts, and the media communication and strategy, which translates into a lot of work at the Public Utility Commission of Ohio and with the Ohio State Legislature. He has been in his current role for around 3 years, where before this job he was working in community organizing across the state for the Sierra Club, with a total of 9 years with the organization. He also has experience working as a legislative aid in the Ohio State Legislature. Waggoner grew up living close to a coal-fired power plant in northeast Ohio, with it in sight of his home when he would walk out the door. Waggoner said this has allowed energy issues to always be very near and dear to his heart. 47
Waggoner’s days are usually consumed by trying to get a handle on all the energy policy or legislation that might be coming up, watching committee hearings, and meetings with the legislature when it is in session. The committees he typically keeps an eye on and meets with are the Ohio House Public Utilities Committee, Ohio House Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, and the Ohio Senate Environmental and Public Utilities Committee. He also meets with other organizations or with media, stating a lot of his day is just meeting with people and talking. As the senior campaign representative, he also makes sure to check in on all the staff he oversees. Waggoner relayed to me that he takes meetings as necessary due to lack of funding, meaning he does not take meetings to simply keep relations up but rather there should be an issue on the table.
Objectives during meetings vary, but Waggoner said that primarily it is to convey Sierra
Club’s position on a matter and to provide information on the topic at hand. He said that the
Sierra Club’s value they bring to the table is their ability to gather and transmit this information, especially due to their spread of members through Ohio. Typically, he will be meeting with a member’s staff, but there are times the actual legislator is in Columbus and it’s possible to get a phone call or short meeting with them—he also emphasized that no matter the amount of time allotted to meet with the legislator, he would always take that opportunity over a longer meeting with a staffer.
In meetings, Waggoner will go over the Sierra Club and their mission, talk a little about the Beyond Coal Campaign, and when we were talking in the interview he made sure to mention that in these conversations he always talks about the social and economic equity in closing these power plants, emphasizing Sierra Club’s recognition that when coal power plants close these communities need support. He also highlighted the need for more clean energy policies. Since 48
Ohio is a deregulated state, he will usually be pushing for more stringent EPA guidelines and federal regulations but is specific to Ohio when he highlights the need to stop bailing out coal- fired power plants or other dirty sources of energy.
Waggoner said that though there is a change in how climate change and environmentalism have been embraced, there still is a lacking policy shift. There has been almost a backward shift, as Waggoner said the legislature has become "far, far more conservative," prompting the Sierra Club to push harder for these regulations than they might have had to in the past.
Geographic location dictates the way a lot of conversations go because different geographic regions have different energy demands, strengths, and industries. Some issues are statewide, and with these, he can focus on economics. He said that it is not necessarily tailoring information, rather being “cognizant of what the interests and the major issues for the legislators are.” Waggoner also said that The Sierra Club has an advantage since they are a nationwide organization, he can take Ohio and explain how it fits into the broader context because they can access the research and information from other states. Waggoner emphasized that their meetings are still devoted to the broader idea of climate change, despite the more specific topic at hand, saying: “everything we’re doing is really devoted and focused on addressing the climate crisis.
We can’t hide from that fact and we’re not going to try to hide from that fact, and I think this is something where maybe in the past the focus was more on the economic message and only the economic message, but that’s changed. There’s more acceptance of the reality of climate change, more public acceptance of it. So, you know, we’re going to talk about it.” He followed by saying they still go in with a heavy economics message, but the way it is framed is around climate change. He said that he talks about the need for more clean energy to come online 49 because of the climate crisis and the risk of not cutting emissions would be “disaster,” emphasizing they deal in facts and reality. Waggoner also said he will focus a lot on the members and supporters from the legislator’s districts. The Sierra Club is a dues-paying organization, so it’s worthwhile to let the legislators know how many of the members are in their district.
Waggoner also said that some legislators are "going to immediately disregard a meeting request, and if [The Sierra Club] get[s] into a meeting, they are just going to… … have a legislator talk at you and tell you why you're wrong for thirty minutes." He said that the prior knowledge a lot of legislators have of the Sierra Club, due to it being the "oldest and largest grassroots organization," but Waggoner said they never try to hide their progressive ideals or historical prominence.
In asking about the difference between how Waggoner might speak to legislators or the public, he said no matter what he will remain fact-based. He is going to say the same thing to both parties, but the goal will be different so the way the conversation goes or the information given will change. He also said the public will ask different questions than the legislator, saying that the legislator might be more inclined to ask technical questions and the public will ask broader picture questions about why what he is saying is important. At the base, the information itself is going to be common.
50
Chapter 4: Analysis and Discussion
This chapter is an analysis of the results I gathered from the interviews. Given the limited sample size in this study, my analysis is offered tentatively and as a call for continued study. But the work here suggests the value of narrative-based policy analysis, particularly the role that risk plays in these analyses, as well as suggesting the significance of lobbying as a practice of deliberative persuasion in important ways consistent with the democratic commitment to “the exchange of good reasons.” In what follows, I elaborate four themes that emerged in my conversations with respondents. These themes reveal an often sophisticated calculus of risk that is consistent with norms of public deliberation. While lobbying is often portrayed as the kind of dirty-business of behind the scenes political life, reducing lobbying to buying votes or buying candidates can miss the important role lobbyists play in shaping the discursive terrain of public debate.
This chapter provides an analysis of themes that recurred in the interviews. I anticipated some of these themes and my interview protocols reflected that anticipation. Other themes – less predictable perhaps – emerged in the course of our conversations. This is again one of the valuable contributions of open-ended inquiry. I identified four dominant themes: communication of the risks associated with the respective energy sector, public verses private risk discourses, risk in relation to climate change, and economic risk
I begin with an overview of my interviewees and the broader take-away from our conversations. As a reminder, I spoke with John Starkey from the American Nuclear Society,
Mike Cope from the Ohio Coal Association, Jimmy Stewart from the Ohio Gas Association,
Brian La Shier from the Union of Concerned Scientists, and John Waggoner from the Sierra
Club. I will refer to these men for the remainder of this chapter by their last name. 51
General Observations and Surface Analysis
Going into the interviews, I recognized the importance of setting the tone of the conversation in a way that facilitated open and honest communication with interviewees. I framed the project around the discourse of risk assessment, this was transparently communicated to the interviewees. Questions were written in a way to ask what their opinions were on the risks of their industry, I never prompted a specific risk for them to speak about. This allowed their genuine feelings to come out. The open-ended questions also encouraged them to speak candidly, as I did not let on any of my personal feelings for or against their cause.
The most obvious difference in the interviews, to me, was the levels of chattiness between the differing interviewees. I found the interviews with Starkey (American Nuclear Society) and
La Shier (Union of Concerned Scientists) to have a formal tone, whereas interviews with Cope
(Ohio Coal Association) and Stewart (Ohio Gas Association) to be chatty and drawn out, both in length and the rapport that existed between myself and these men.
This is important to point out because of the formal interviews, both of those men work in Washington, D.C. In my non-formal interviews, they live and work in Ohio, primarily southern and eastern Ohio. I imagine this difference has to do with the number of meetings the men had on their schedule and the form of energy or energy goal that person lobbies for. For the interviews with Starkey and La Shier, I was given a 30-minute max interview slot upon their request. Beforehand for the interviews with Cope and Stewart, they let me know they had ample amount of time to talk to me and had each carved out at least an hour for our meeting. In the case of Cope and Stewart, they are men that generally talk to a lot of manufacturers and producers of their energy source, and talk to people who will be personally affected by the continuation or discontinuation of this energy source. When talking to people who might be a little more 52
“average,” or simply put, those whose lives do not revolve around energy production and legislation, more chatty and personal conversations would more likely make an impact on these people. In other instances, if you are constantly meeting with people who are taking multiple meetings on energy a day, in the case of Starkey and La Shier, you are going to know how to get your point across succinctly; fluff is both unnecessary and unwelcome in that case.
Geographic differences make an impact as well—from experience living in both areas of the country, there is a Midwest attitude that does not translate to the serious tone in D.C. This is being highlighted because I would imagine there are differences between the actual meetings these men take, not just in the interviews conducted with me. Again, this is not a definitive analysis of how these men act in every single one of their meetings, but to properly analyze the substance of the interviews, I find it appropriate to draw attention to the non-verbal and more intuitive differences in interviews.
Risk Theme #1: To use or not to use
The most prominent point of conversation of these interviews was the way that the lobbyists would explain the risk of doing or not doing something, mostly whether that something is using or not using the energy source their organization promotes. Starkey had a well-prepared and thought-out way to explain the risk of nuclear energy, particularly the nuclear waste question. When we got into the conversation, he had multiple points to touch on and seemed organized in the way he went about it. Conversely, Cope and Stewart, while after a bit of nudging got into the conversation of risks surrounding their energy source, did not initially interpret my questions surrounding risk to be about the risk factors involved in their energy source. They either avoided or were not sure how to answer the question of risks in the use of 53 their energy, rather they spoke more about the risks of not adopting their energy sources. Their rhetoric revolved around a call for equal use of the energy sources, almost fighting to keep their source in the conversation. It’s unclear whether they did not want to talk about risk or if they misunderstood my line of questioning.
While Starkey did touch on the risk of continual use of exclusively fossil fuels, he seemed accustomed to answering questions about the risk surrounding nuclear energy. This is fair enough, as explained in earlier chapters, nuclear energy has had a divisive and, at times, dangerous history. However, looking beyond the surface level of why nuclear energy would be more prepared and inclined to explain the risk of their energy source versus the fossil fuel lobbyists interviewed, what might this reasoning be?
Nuclear energy is a much newer and more complex form of energy than the traditional fossil fuels in the United States. It is also a less established form of energy. Coal and natural gas do not have the same public perception as nuclear energy and already have an extremely large infrastructure in the United States. According to Count of Electric Power Industry Power Plants, by Sector, by Predominant Energy Sources within Plant, 2009 through 2019, in 2019 coal and natural gas have combined, 2,000 power plants in the United States, whereas nuclear has 58
(Energy Information Administration, 2019). This signals a stronger background and infrastructure in coal and natural gas. The threat, of coal especially, for fossil fuels is not that more stations won’t be built—there is already a large network of these power plants—rather, it is a threat of them being shut down. Cope and Stewart may not have been initially apt at conveying the risks associated with their energy source because that is not usually the conversation that takes place. These are lobbyists who are fighting to keep their energy source around. Cope spoke with me about how much coal production has slowed and the fact that there have been many 54 power plants in Ohio that have shut down. He spoke to me a lot about the risk of losing coal power, not of the risks associated with the source itself. Pulling a quote from the previous chapter, Cope stated in the interview that “[It’s] gonna take a real big blackout to get the regular people… …to wake up, and say ‘we have to have a balanced approach to this thing.’” I am highlighting this quote again because it was said in response to a question on how the public perceives the risks of coal. Rather than speaking about these risks and talking about why they are not true, or perhaps how he would quell these fears, Cope instead turns to a conversation of what would happen if coal were to cease to exist in Ohio. When asked the same question, Stewart found it difficult to even identify a risk that might be associated with natural gas. To give him a bit of credit, he is a lobbyist for natural gas pipelines in Ohio and not the actual production, but I hold off on giving too much credit because there is still public outcry and perceived risk and controversy surrounding natural gas pipelines in Ohio (Wagoner, 2021).
Comparing these responses to that of Starkey, who acknowledged the public’s fear about waste disposal and answered with a response that would seem rehearsed, or rather practiced, allows me to conclude that conversation of risk is not one Cope and Stewart are not used to having. Starkey has experience in explaining the risk associated with nuclear energy because he mainly speaks with government officials on the federal level. These are people who might be more useful in the allocation of funds and federal programs that would promote nuclear energy.
Starkey would not try to advocate on behalf of specific nuclear power plants, his objective is bigger picture. Cope and Stewart speak to more state-level government officials, and they also represent the actual coal and natural gas companies and employees in Ohio. Their focus is more issue-based and not necessarily on the general risk factors of coal and natural gas. This is not to say risk does not come up, as in the interviews I learned about how they deal with questions 55 about the risk, but the difference in answers is important to point out because of the stark differences in the level of preparedness and familiarity with the question. This subsection does not apply to the interviews conducted with La Shier and Waggoner because they do not advocate for a specific energy source.
Risk Theme #2: Public vs. Private
Another major point of conversation in the interviews is the way that risk is communicated and perceived to and by the public, as opposed to how it is with elected or government officials. Starkey and his organization have a whole task force in development with the purpose of communication of risk between them and the public. His discussion of the
Radiation Communication Task Force and the reason behind its conception is to create a group that can accurately communicate with the public and the media in the event of a nuclear event.
This is an organized group that interestingly exists with the nuclear industry but no such body was involved with the other interviewees. This, again, calls back to the fact that nuclear energy is seen with apprehension and must be explained carefully and constantly. There is no problem with the fact that the other groups do not have such a task force, it is understandable why it would exist in the nuclear industry. The perceived risks in the nuclear industry seem consistent with both the public and Congress, neither being too distinct from the other when it comes to what is concerning and with how risk is communicated.
Cope said that the public thinks coal has created global warming on its own, something he strongly disagrees with. The interview gives off the impression he finds himself getting frustrated when the public that has a problem with coal energy, going as far as to place judgements on their character, as demonstrated when he called anti-coal activists a cult. Each time questions of what the risks of coal are, what the perceived risks of coal are, how he talks 56 about these risks, Cope answered with enthusiasm but also with a hint of anger and arrogance.
He would answer initially by stating the risk factor people would identify exists with coal—that it’s dirty—but in a tone that can only be interpreted as him thinking those who think that are completely wrong, that there is no truth to it. He admits that coal can emit dirty chemicals, but justifies this by saying it is regulated. He does not want to admit that the public has a perception of risk and that it can be an accurate one.
Stewart’s relationship with the public is another that was not quite clear but gives the same energy as Cope as one of disdain. During the interview, Stewart described the feeling that those (in the public, specifically at a hearing) who oppose natural gas pipelines are rude, claiming they are disrespecting those who construct these pipelines.
I had trouble deciphering what Stewart perceives as the risk associated with natural gas, but by analyzing the response to the public that shares their concerns, it is apparent he does not listen to what these concerns might be. It is my understanding that he represents the natural gas pipeline industry, so taking criticism personally might be because he feels a connection to those he represents. But getting upset, rather than listening to these concerns and trying to understand where they might be coming from, further proves that the concept of risk is not one Stewart considers often enough to have the formulated answer for.
The conversation of public versus private methods of communication was interesting for
La Shier and Waggoner. They both represent organizations that must have relations with both the public and with elected officials because they are organizations in which the public is welcome to join. Both lobbyists told me that communication with the public still must be based on facts, but these facts might be simplified based on the audience. I did not get this same kind of response when speaking with energy lobbyists. One of the reasons for this might be because their 57 conversations are not incredibly scientific to begin with. The more environmentally and scientifically focused organizations, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Sierra
Club, might lean on the science to get them through their meetings and to get their agenda communicated. Geography is another big factor to consider for La Shier and Waggoner, as both said that their communication depends on what underlying issues might be happening in the geographic region where the people they are speaking to are from.
Each lobbyist has a differing perspective on how they both perceive and talk to the public. It seems that although each lobbyist said in some way or another that education is the number one priority, representatives from the fossil fuel industry are not impressed by the public’s perception of their energy sources, the nuclear lobby has a whole task force dedicated to education and mitigation of fear surrounding the industry, and the environmental and scientific groups truly work towards education and have a solid understanding on what that education should look like.
Risk Theme #3: Climate Change
The conversation of climate change came up in every interview except for Stewart’s, whether prompted or not. Acknowledgment, accountability, and communication methods for climate change is a significant point of comparison. In summary, each of those who brought up climate change also related it to risk but all in different ways.
To begin, Starkey emphasized that the risk climate change poses on the world is reason enough for nuclear energy to be considered more seriously. Starkey provided a statistic that said fossil fuels cause roughly 4 million premature deaths a year due to air pollution and climate change. I fact-checked this number and came up with a study conducted by Greenpeace 58
Southeast Asia and the Centre for Research on Clean Energy and Air that has the same statistic, which is presumably where Starkey got his number (Greenpeace Southeast Asia, 2020). Starkey spoke about climate change as a risk factor if nuclear energy is not adopted, but not as a risk of nuclear energy.
Cope acknowledged climate change and told me he was not a climate denier—but that he also does not think coal is the main, or rather only, the reason why global warming exists. Going into the interview, I expected the conversation to center much more around climate change than it did. My questioning never explicitly asked anything about climate change, but since coal is publically known as a dirty and polluting energy source, something Cope acknowledged, I expected the interview to be more about how he frames the risk of climate change. However, this is not how the interview went. He never said that climate change was a risk associated with burning coal, rather conceding that carbon dioxide was the biggest risk. In a roundabout way, this could be perceived as him admitting that climate change is a risk associated with burning coal as it is known that carbon dioxide is one of the biggest greenhouse gases causing climate change (NASA, n.d.). But by him not directly connecting carbon dioxide to climate change, he avoided blaming the burning of coal for climate change. It is hard to know if this was intentional or not. He rationalized the risk, seemingly trying to convince me and those he meets with that the carbon dioxide, among other chemicals, that are produced and ejected into the air when coal is burned, are worth it. He claimed that coal is what built Ohio into a manufacturing giant and that the absence of coal would be detrimental for Ohioans. On the topic of renewable energy, he insinuated that people who believe in the power of renewable are unintelligent, at one point quoted having said “If you believe that windmills and solar panels are going to provide the number of gigawatts we need in this country for the next 10 years, then I have some swampland 59 in Florida I'd like to sell you,” giving the impression that those who support these renewables are dumb, characterized by his joke about selling swampland. He doesn’t take the threats of climate change as a result of coal seriously, and though it’s impossible to know exactly how he talks to legislators, it’s clear to me that it’s not something he would ever intentionally bring up.
La Shier had an interesting perspective on climate change, which is what he defined as the most pressing environmental risk. He told me that when communicating the risk surrounding climate change that he can have a conversation about climate change without explicitly mentioning the words “climate change.” He said this is because the effects of climate change are felt by people every single day. He also said that the methods of communicating the risk of climate change vary with who you are speaking to, as mentioned in the previous section.
However, regardless of who he is speaking to, he frames risk in a way that people can relate to.
Specifically, with a congressperson’s staff, he will frame the risk of climate change differently depending on where the constituents of this representative live. He also said emphasizing risks in a physical way versus through complicated numbers helps conceptualize climate change for people.
Waggoner spoke about climate change by emphasizing geography as well, but he also leaned into the fact that Sierra Club acknowledges climate change. One of the biggest strategies in conveying risk associated with climate change for Waggoner is using the resources that the
Sierra Club has as a nationwide organization. The personal touch of being able to add the number of constituents belong to the Sierra Club, depending on the person he is speaking with, is another huge advantage. He told me above all, he deals in facts and reality.
The similarities between the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Sierra Club are strong because they are both organizations that acknowledge climate change and are dedicated to 60 working with legislators to stop it from going further. One of, if not the biggest, objectives for these two groups is to educate people on climate change and the risks surrounding it. They are strong in their stance against climate change because they have to be and they have a lot of experience talking to people about it. Starkey from the American Nuclear Society leaned into climate change a bit, but since the conversation was mostly about how he talks about risks associated with nuclear energy climate change only came up momentarily. The most significant takeaway about climate change was the avoidance of climate change altogether by Stewart, and the shifting of blame for climate change by Cope. The fossil fuel lobbies I spoke with did not want to talk about climate change, despite that being one of the biggest risk factors of their industry. This avoidance makes it clear they either do not care about climate change or know they cannot get around the fact that fossil fuels are a big contributing factor to the existence of climate change, so it’s best to just avoid mentioning it at all costs before there is an actual conversation about it.
Risk Theme #4: Economic Factor
Finally, I will touch on the way economics comes into the conversation about the risk for these different lobbyists. Starkey did not really mention economics in his interview, but he did acknowledge that fossil fuels allowed the United States to become an economic world power. He said this in the context of criticism of fossil fuels. It’s telling that he acknowledged this fact, demonstrating that it might be a point of argument from those he meets with, so he is ready to talk about it. The important part about that is that he understands the role and impact that fossil fuels have on the economy, but despite this understanding, nuclear energy is still the better option. 61
Cope talked about economics by emphasizing that the risk associated with coal energy dying out would be a loss of jobs—this was one of the moments he reinterpreted my question of what potential risk factors are associated with coal. He said that before a meeting, he finds the number of people who would lose their job should a coal-fired plant shut down, and uses that as a method of explaining this risk of closing plants. He also uses economics to rationalize the risks that might be associated with coal, in a way mirroring Starkey’s assessment, but with a different conclusion. Cope argued that coal has provided an avenue for Ohio to become a manufacturing giant, which is not inherently untrue but does not provide backup facts to prove why the economic gains are worth more than the perceived risk associated with coal.
Stewart emphasized the cheap price of natural gas in our interview. This is one of the benefits of natural gas and is something that he emphasizes in meetings. Beyond this, Stewart did not talk much about the economics or jobs associated with natural gas. In trying to understand the interview with Stewart, it seems as if he should have mentioned economics a lot more. Both he and Cope spoke about how inexpensive natural gas is, but this is not something Stewart focused on.
Both La Shier and Waggoner talk about economic risk in the context of economic equity.
While Cope highlighted the loss of jobs that would be associated with a coal plant shutting down, La Shier and Waggoner acknowledged the potential for jobs losses as well—however, they take it a step further and accept these job losses but make sure to emphasize the need to have a plan to replace these jobs. This is something La Shier especially emphasized in our interview, explicitly mentioning the coal industry as a place where these jobs might be lost as fossil fuels fade away. Waggoner told me that there is always a context of economics around what he is talking about, and focuses on equity as well. 62
Economics, though not the main point in most of the interviews, is something I would imagine is used as a major bargaining chip during meetings. As the country transitions into greater concern surrounding climate change, perspectives like Starkey’s might be more pronounced. Caring more about climate change than economic progress could become the bigger issue—however, most Americans still primarily care about money. Therefore, arguments having to do with a loss in jobs as a result of fading fossil fuel industries are hard to combat. As
Cope said, he uses these projected numbers as a talking point in his meetings. La Shier’s method is crucial to the progress of climate change mitigation: by acknowledging that there will be job losses as a result of the movement away from fossil fuels but by counteracting this risk and demanding equity and creation of new jobs, he doesn’t give people a chance to write him off as someone who only cares about the environment, but as someone who cares about both the people and the planet.
Closing Thoughts
I did not know what to expect going into these interviews and what I would discover. There are so many little details to unpack from these interviews—from the fact that three out of five of the people interviewed grew up around fossil fuel production, that similar arguments were used to prove completely different points across the interviewees, or that some of them hardly acknowledged risks associated with their industry at all, the interviews were exciting to conduct and intriguing to analyze. The nuclear industry, as expected, had a lot to say about risk. Nuclear energy is in an interesting position to talk about risk, because there is no denying what has happened in the past. This opens an opportunity to talk candidly and assure people of the safety in this energy source. Fossil fuels have a harder time, because risk is not 63 always obvious in their industry. Climate change is highlighting the risks associated with fossil fuels, but for a long time it was not the main point of discussion. Now that risk is more apparent, fossil fuel lobbyists need to take a page from the nuclear industry and acknowledge the risks associated in their industry. Cope and Stewart struggled talking about risk, whether this is because they do not want to acknowledge it or because they truly do not see the risks associated with their energy, this avoidance makes it clear that future conversations are going to be tough for them.
Risk is tricky to convey without backing yourself into a corner and these lobbyists have a job to do, so I can’t imagine it is easy to talk about risk. Regardless of whether it is easy to talk about or not though, it exists, it’s not going away, and it’s important to have honest conversations about it. At the end of the day, if the risk associated with something is too big, changes need to be made to avoid any detrimental effects.
64
Conclusion
This project began as a continuation of my interest in nuclear energy, but was developed to incorporate my experience working in a congressional office. The past four years of work and learning I have done in college have had an interdisciplinary lens, mainly focusing on the combination of study of the environment, sustainability practices, climate change, and policy.
This background has given me an understanding of both nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, and rudimentary knowledge of policy and governmental work. My thesis worked to combine these two interests into a project aimed at discovering the link between nuclear energy and the policy surrounding it. My work in a congressional office lead me to see lobbying as more than campaign contributions and expensive lunches, as I had previously imagined it was. I learned that working as a staffer in a congressional office or committee means meeting with lobbyists every single day, often multiple different meetings a day, and trying to understand their cause and decide if it is something that would benefit the district’s constituents. I went through countless piles of mail including information packets, booklets, and letters, and dispersed them to their respective recipient in the office. This is where I learned the real value of lobbying, leading me into this entire project.
My interest in nuclear energy began a few years ago after I wrote an essay about my personal opinion on the energy source within the framework of environmental economics—at that time I still did not have a clear picture about the energy source, but I felt the potential and the excitement of what could be a solution to the United States’ dependence on fossil fuel. After that small project, nuclear energy came up in many more of the classes I took and I progressively became more and more intrigued and conflicted on its perceived pros and cons. The biggest issue with nuclear energy has always been its risk, this risk is something that stops a lot of its 65 popularity in the United States. So, by asking the question of how this risk is communicated in lobbying meetings, if it is going to be at all successful in replacing or supplementing traditional forms of energy in the United States, it raises a more broad question about how risk is communicated at all in lobbying meetings, since after all, every single thing somebody does in their life entails some level of risk and energy production is by no means excluded from this.
The answer to this question is not simple—risk is hard to communicate and often creates a reaction in people that stops them from pursuing further action. Through my research, though,
I learned that risk is a conversation that happens in these meetings, especially in nuclear lobbies, but efforts made to minimize risk are crucial. Even in my interviews, I found the lobbyists from energy groups not giving me the whole picture of risk in their field. Despite the difficulties I had at times getting information from my interviewees, each had experience in talking about risk to elected officials and could speak to me about in conversations they have had surrounding risk.
Risk in the energy lobby is often framed by comparing risk of one energy source to another, providing rationale in the form of economic prosperity, and minimizing the actual damage that can be done as a result of the use of a specific energy source. Comparing this to environmental groups, risk for them is often framed by looking at facts, figures, and reality.
This research is important and has further implications in environmental policy research.
Discourses of risk have been central since the later part of the 20th century, particularly risk assessment becoming a major part of writing regulations, laws, and other policies (Russel &
Gruber, 1987). Risk has been described at “the field of play” for competing stakeholder interests, and my research shows this policy framework in action. The role of risk in these conversations I had is important to this discourse about how risk factors into the decision-making and fits into this ongoing trend of research because of the large role lobbyists have in the 66 legislating process. This specific focus I took, looking at the way risk is communicated by lobbyists, is relatively understudied. Risk assessment being of such an important role in decision-making allows this research to provide groundwork or contribute to future research into the substantial conversations that take place between lobbyists and the legislators they speak to.
My thesis also integrates the practices of energy and environmental lobbying into a broader assessment of their implications for democratic decision-making. Despite its focus on the energy and environmental lobby, a lot of what was uncovered can be applied to and is telling about lobbying in the United States. Particularly, it calls special attention to and provides evidence against the common view of lobbyists “buying votes” (Craig & Madland, 2014). The research I conducted shows that much more goes into lobbying than money, that the practice of lobbying is integral to the democratic process. Critics of lobbying see it as a way to buy votes or candidates, but by looking at the actual conversations that take place and hearing directly from the lobbyists themselves, my research suggests that they understand their persuasive power as much more than campaign contributions – that they see lobbying as the work of providing “good reasons” for legislative support. In this context, they take seriously the need to provide persuasive arguments regarding risks and benefits of their industry work.
Ideally, without constraints of time or the challenging barriers of COVID-19, which is when this entire thesis research was undergone, I would build on the work I present here to develop an analysis not just of narrative argument but of persuasion. To accomplish this, and as was in my initial research design, interviews should be conducted between legislators and their staff. Looking at only lobbyists, while still informative, only provides one side of the story.
Communication of risk can only go so far depending on how it is received, so by interviewing legislators the persuasion factor, effectiveness, and ultimately the success, could be evaluated. 67
Unfortunately, I was unable to accomplish the legislator interviews in this project. There were many attempts at communication between myself and congressional and state-level staffers, but there was almost no response on their end, the only communication back I received was one decline of the request for an interview. Obviously, I do not know the exact reasoning behind the almost non-existent response, but I would attribute some of this to the pandemic. I am grateful to the lobbyists who agreed to these interviews as well, as I am sure their schedules are equally challenging during this time. Working from home and handling the pandemic more than likely made schedules packed for staffers and given the time constraints of this research, no staffers agreed to be interviewed. However, future research into this subject is important and I hope that staffers will eventually be available and willing to participate. Ultimately, the goal would be to get both legislative and lobbying participation in large numbers, which would allow a more thorough analysis of trends and the evaluation of success.
This research also shows that the relationship between risk assessment and the democratic process needs more attention in the field of environmental studies. As such a broad and interdisciplinary field, environmental studies is an incredibly interesting avenue to use to look at risk assessment and the consequences it has on the democratic process. As I expected, in the context of my interviews narratives of risk played a central role for each of the lobbyists with whom I spoke: each sector worked to portray their industry as less risky than others. The literature on narrative policy analysis suggests that “risk” became a highly politicized in the later part of the 20th century in part in relationship to a recognition of the terrains of uncertainty introduced by technological innovations and the scaling up of industrial technologies. Risk can often translate into fear, which can thus immobilize people from acting, causing problems and potentially undermining democracy. Risk assessment, and the communication of these perceived 68 risks to the public, allow for public officials to use fear in order to guide the public into allowing certain behavior. The fear of job loss versus environmental degradation may play a role in this fear, for example. It is easy for someone to envision themselves losing their job, but not so easy for them to envision the effects of climate change. They will most likely see job loss as the bigger risk, the bigger fear, and look toward trusted people in the government to make the right decision, the decision that will ensure they keep their jobs. However, as environmentalists know, action on climate change is urgent and needs to happen immediately—there is no time to play the environment versus economics game, because ultimately both will suffer as a result. This is why this research is important to environmental studies, because it calls attention to the mobilization of “risk” as a weapon to serve an industry, namely fossil fuel industries. Environmental policy research would benefit from this investigation into the relationship between risk and policy makers, with the lobbyists as the messengers. It could call attention to reform that should be made and other policy actions to take going forward.
My research into the relationship between risk and lobbyists didn’t go as planned but I believe it provides the foundation for a more expansive project in the future. Such work would make important contributions to academic literatures on the role of lobbying, on rhetorics of risk, and on their role in shaping democratic practices and institutional politics. But it would also lay the groundwork for a more critical analysis of the role of risk in shaping energy policy. Risk assessment, as my interviews demonstrate, is as much a political as a scientific practice. And acknowledging this is key to making both good policy and fostering democratic practice.
69
Works Cited
Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research. (2019, May 28). A warming Arctic produces weather extremes in our latitudes. ScienceDaily. from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190528140115.htm
Bandyk, M. (2021, February 01). Nuclear has another friend In Biden, but changes at the NRC could mean more scrutiny ahead. Retrieved from https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuclear-has-another-friend-in-biden-but-changes-at-the- nrc-could-mean-more/593609/
Barber, M., & Eatough, M. (2020). Industry politicization and interest GROUP campaign contribution strategies. The Journal of Politics, 82(3), 1008-1025. doi:10.1086/707493
Berman, R. (2018, May 01). An exodus from congress tests the lure of lobbying. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/lobbying-the-job-of-choice-for- retired-members-of-congress/558851/
Bisconti, A. S. (2018). Changing public attitudes toward nuclear energy. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 102, 103-113. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.07.002
Brulle, R.J. The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016. Climatic Change 149, 289–303 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2241-z
Calma, J. (2019, September 05). Democrats are divided on using nuclear energy to stop climate change. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/5/20850763/climate-change- cnn-town-hall-democrat-candidates-nuclear-energy-2020-elections
Carlisle, R. (1997). Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Nuclear Reactors: Engineering Success, Public Relations Failure. Technology and Culture, 38(4), 920-941. doi:10.2307/3106954
Coats, D. R. (2019, January 24). Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community.
Craig, J., & Madland, D. (2014, May 2). How campaign contributions and lobbying can lead to inefficient economic policy. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/05/02/88917/how- campaign-contributions-and-lobbying-can-lead-to-inefficient-economic-policy/
Drutman, L. (2010). The complexities of Lobbying: Toward a deeper understanding of the profession. PS: Political Science & Politics, 43(04), 834-837. doi:10.1017/s1049096510001721 70
Energy Information Administration. (2019). Count of Electric Power Industry Power Plants, by Sector, by Predominant Energy Sources within Plant, 2009 through 2019. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_01.html
Fenno, R. F. "Observation, Context, and Sequence in the Study of Politics." The American Political Science Review 80, no. 1 (1986): 3-15.
Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home Style: House Members in Their Districts (Longman Classics Series). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Ferman, M. (2021, April 19). Despite natural gas failures during winter storm, Texas lawmakers Target renewable energy in the aftermath. Retrieved from https://www.texastribune.org/2021/04/19/texas-renewable-energy-oil-gas/
Gibson, K. (2021, March 25). How Biden can jumpstart U.S. nuclear waste strategy. Retrieved from https://news.stanford.edu/2021/03/24/biden-can-jumpstart-u-s-nuclear-waste-strategy/
Greenpeace Southeast Asia. (2020, February 12). Toxic air: The price of fossil fuels. Retrieved from https://www.greenpeace.org/southeastasia/publication/3603/toxic-air-the-price-of- fossil-fuels-full-report/
Gottlieb, M., Bertone Oehninger, E. and Arnold, G. (2018), “No Fracking Way” vs. “Drill Baby Drill”: A Restructuring of Who Is Pitted Against Whom in the Narrative Policy Framework. Policy Stud J, 46: 798-827. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12291
Holt, M. (2018, September 6). Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal. Retrieved from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33461
Jaczko, G. B. (2019). Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Kang, K. (2015). Policy influence and private returns from lobbying in the energy sector. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(1), 269-305. doi:10.1093/restud/rdv029
Kormann, C. (2019, December 22). Is Nuclear Power Worth the Risk? Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/is-nuclear-power-worth-the-risk
Larson, L. N. (2020, April 13). Nuclear Waste Storage Sites in the United States. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IF11201.pdf
Lawlor, A. and Crow, D. (2018), Risk-Based Policy Narratives. Policy Stud J, 46: 843- 867. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12270
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Lobbyist. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lobbyist 71
NASA. (n.d.). The causes of climate change. Retrieved from https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
Nuclear Energy Institute. (2019, April 01). Ohio Nuclear Energy Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/ohio
Office of Nuclear Energy (2021, March 24). Nuclear power is the most reliable energy source and it's not even close. Retrieved from https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power- most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close
Reinhart, R. (2021, January 14). 40 years after Three Mile Island, Americans split on nuclear power. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island- americans-split-nuclear-power.aspx
Richardson, J. (1993). Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular- Negative. Review of Religious Research, 34(4), 348-356. doi:10.2307/3511972
Russell, M., & Gruber, M. (1987). Risk assessment in environmental policy-making. Science, 236(4799), 286-290. doi:10.1126/science.3563508
Schlissel, D., & Biewald, B. (2008, July). Nuclear Power Plant Construction Costs. Retrieved from http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/wang-k2/
United State Department of Energy. (2002). The History of Nuclear Energy. Retrieved from https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/The%20History%20of%20Nuclear%20Energy_0.p df
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2019, September). Getting Risk Communication Right: Helping Communities Plan at Superfund Sites.
United States Energy Information Administration. (2020, May 7). U.S. energy facts explained. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2019). Map of Power Reactor Sites. Retrieved from https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-nonpower-reactors.html
Wagoner, R. (2021, March 23). New administration, new challenges for oil and gas industry. Retrieved from https://www.farmanddairy.com/news/new-administration-new-challenges- for-oil-and-gas-industry/655483.html
72
73
Appendix
Below are the interview questions. Parenthesis behind questions with specific organization denote if question was only asked to that specific group.
I. Job Description and Preparation: How did you become a lobbyist /advocate? What was your previous experience? Describe a typical day of work for you.
Who are the people you typically find yourself speaking to, in terms of their job title or type of organization they work for? Do you speak with legislatures?
Which legislative committees are most relevant to the work you do?
II. Access: Are there representatives that you meet with regularly, regardless of what’s on the legislative agenda?
Do you have reliable allies in the legislature?
Are there some representatives that you simply don’t reach out to?
III. Structure: What is your objective during meetings? Are you typically there to seek support for a specific policy/ regulation? Or do you keep in regular contact regardless of whether there is an immediate action item?
On average how long is a scheduled meeting?
What is your role in these meetings?
IV. Substance: Do you push for legislation that would impact the fossil fuel industry? The nuclear industry?
Is there a need to tailor information when meeting with people from specific/different geographic regions? If so, could you give some examples?
Where would you like to see more regulation/de-regulation? How does “risk” factor into making the case for regulation or deregulation?
What are some of the differences between how you speak with legislatures versus to the public?
What are some of the methods you use to get your point across? For example, do you use facts, case studies, specific language and rhetoric? How does this change with policy makers?
74
Do you feel you face more significant obstacles when talking to legislatures versus specific energy advocates, given there is no singular cause you are fighting for?
Specifically relating to nuclear energy, certain words, such as nuclear contamination, meltdown, disaster, evacuation and accident can evoke certain emotions in people when talking about nuclear energy. Are there particular words, phrases or ideas that you may try to emphasize due to the association that exists with them?
What do you see as the most pressing environmental threat or risk? (Union of Concerned Scientists) Do you find it difficult to explain the science behind a lot of the issues you press for, especially with the complexity of a lot of these issues? (Union of Concerned Scientists)
How do you communicate with people might not believe in climate change, or are disinterested in your argument? (Union of Concerned Scientists, Sierra Club)
How do you feel your role has shifted as environmentalism has become more prominent and accepted? (Union of Concerned Scientists, Sierra Club)
The Sierra Club is such a historic organization. Does this history help or hinder you when it comes to getting through to people? (Sierra Club)
Given the historical prominence of coal energy, are there benefits you get from the relatively expansive knowledge the public has about coal energy? Any disadvantages? (Ohio Coal Association)
Ohio is an interesting state to be based out of in the coal industry due to the expansive energy portfolio in this state. How might you gear your conversation to be pro-coal in Ohio, when there are so many other competitors? What kind of rhetoric do you use when discussing different energy sources versus your own? Are there key words or phrases? Would this change state to state? (Ohio Coal Association)
As environmentalism grows and coal becomes less publically popular, do you face more apprehension now than you historically did? If yes, how do you calm this apprehension? Are there certain buzzwords or explanations you go to? (Ohio Coal Association)