Commentary—

Lawmaker Investments Not So Green

By Lindsay Renick Mayer

When environmental lobbyists and eco-friendly citizens come a-knockin’ on lawmakers’ office doors, Democrats (and some Republicans) can detail efforts to pass legislation that directs taxes collected from the oil and gas industry toward renewable energy initiatives. But the politicians probably won’t mention that while they’re encouraging the country to invest in alternatives, they themselves aren’t doing so with their own money.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, members of Congress have more money invested in each of the top five oil and gas companies, individually, than in 305 green stock companies combined.

The most recent personal financial disclosures show that members had at least 45 times more money invested in the oil and gas industry (at least $20.6 million) than in public companies that provide “green” products and services (at least $452,100). This includes companies that develop renewable energy projects, manufacture energy-efficiency products, recycle material, or create wind or solar products. The amount of money members have plunked down on these green stocks, as listed in the newsletter Progressive Investor, has actually decreased 23 percent since 2004, while their investments in oil and gas have increased by 30 percent.

“Every purchase that we make, whether to buy a car or a piece of clothing — and that includes stock in our portfolio — we’re making a strong statement about what we want,” said Rona Fried, editor and publisher of Progressive Investor. “If you invest in clean energy stock, you’re making a statement that that’s where you want to see the world going. If you invest in fossilized companies, you’re going to be stuck with the dinosaurs.”

Democrats, who have tried repeatedly in the last year to pass legislation that would tax oil companies and use the money for wind and solar energy subsidies, had even less money invested in green stocks than Republicans in 2006 — at least $59,300 compared to at least $392,600. (Members of Congress annually disclose their investments in ranges, making it impossible to determine their exact value.)

Of course not all members of Congress agree that renewable energy is the way to go — and even if they do, they might not be comfortable buying stock in such companies yet, because the industry is young and the stocks can be volatile, Progressive Investor’s Fried said.

Indeed, between 2004 and 2006, lawmakers were not getting rich off of their green investments. On average, individual lawmakers earned at least $2,700 on these investments over the three-year period, through dividends, capital gains, royalties and interest, the center found. They made an average of $24,200, however, on their investments in the oil and gas industry. Because the most recent personal financial disclosure data available is from 2006 — 2007 reports are due mid-May—it’s still impossible to say whether members have become more or less invested in these companies in the last 15 months.

Then again, some investments in alternative energy aren’t considered to be healthy. Last year President Bush signed an energy bill that doubled the use of corn-based ethanol, a controversial biofuel that is driving up the price of food worldwide. In 2006, lawmakers had at least $825,400 invested in the companies that stand to profit the most from corn-based ethanol production, including agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland. Democrats owned 75 percent of those investments (though Senator John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, own 60 percent alone).

Democrats may have less of their own money invested in green stocks, but those companies have invested more in the campaigns of Democrats than Republicans. Of the total $242,900 that the companies’ employees and PACs have given to federal candidates, parties, and committees so far in the 2008 election cycle, 68 percent has gone to Democrats. The oil and gas industry, however, has traditionally supported Republicans. This election cycle, Republicans have received 73 percent of the total $11.5 million from the oil and gas industry.

Addressing global warming and investing in clean technologies and renewable energy is not a partisan issue, said Doug Stingle, membership and outreach coordinator of the Midwest Renewable Energy Association. “This is something that everyone should be invested in. It’s not an ideological issue,” he said. “If global warming severely alters our ecosystem in such a way that we can’t live our lives, it won’t matter if you’re Republican or Democrat. It’s beyond that.”

(Lindsay Renick Mayer writes for Capital Eye, the online newsletter and blog of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C., that tracks the influence of money on elections and public policy at its website, OpenSecrets.org.)