E: the new 'scarlet letter'

Feb. 11, 2002
There's nothing like a juicy scandal to hit some new high notes in the perpetual comic opera that is Washington, DC.

There's nothing like a juicy scandal to hit some new high notes in the perpetual comic opera that is Washington, DC.

Of course, the latest "scarlet letter" to be worn there is "E" for Enron. What grand fun it is to watch all the posturing and fingerpointing while politicians of every stripe scramble to distance themselves from a political pariah by returning its campaign contributions. It's reminiscent of the Sureté chief in the film Casablanca, caught up in a Nazi SS raid on the hero's casino and indignantly declaring that he's shocked-shocked!-to find gambling going on there while surreptitiously pocketing his winnings.

(OGJ would like to take this opportunity to inform its readers that it is returning all press releases and presskits that Enron Corp. ever sent us to reassure them that in no way did any accompanying nonessential materials [i.e., paper clips, nifty photos, etc.] ever influence its coverage of Enron and the US energy scene.)

Spinning the spin

Meanwhile, pundits further spin what the spinmeisters spin in tones usually reserved for college professors parsing Greek tragedies for What It All Means.

The real tragedy here might just be the defeat of the best US energy policy to come down the pike-all because the administration had the effrontery to seek the advice of, among many others, an energy company in formulating its energy policy. The horror.

It all gets to be a bit tiresome and predictable after a while. But sometimes there's a sudden twist in the plot, a surprising revelation that perks up the show.

It seems that Enron had intimate dealings not just with the usual (conservative, pro-petroleum, Republican) suspects in Washington but also with a notably atypical-and notably "green"-suspect.

An imaginary hearing

Let's use an excerpt from a fictitious congressional committee hearing to shed more light on the subject:

CHAIRMAN: "…So let the record note again that the witness is a spokes- person for the international environmental activist group Greenpeace-"

GREENPEACE: "Excuse me, Senator, but we prefer the term 'spokesentity.' Not only is it gender-neutral, but it also keeps us from wrongfully asserting our dominion over the other life forms that inhabit the planet."

CHAIRMAN: "Uh, right. Having read your statement into the record, I'd like to also read some relevant material into the record before asking you some questions."

GREENPEACE: "Excuse me again, Senator, but is that recycled paper you're reading from? I'm afraid our organization's position may be compromised by the presence of nonrecycled-"

CHAIRMAN: "I have it on good authority that this paper is recycled from spent chads harvested from Florida ballots. Now, I would like to read from a column written by Ray Evans, secretary of the Melbourne-based Lavoisier Group, for the Sydney daily The Australian. Evans states that Enron stood to gain billions of dollars from the sales of natural gas that would accelerate tremendously under the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change. He further states that Enron would garner still more billions from the trade in carbon emissions credits that would see explosive growth under a Kyoto treaty.

"I'm quoting from his article now:

'On Dec. 12, 1997, just a day or so after the Kyoto meeting had concluded, an internal [Enron] memo asserted that the Kyoto protocol "will do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the US." It described the protocol's endorsement of international trade in carbon credits as "another victory for us," adding, "this agreement will be good for Enron stock." The memo claimed that Enron had "excellent credentials with many green interests," including Greenpeace. These groups, in turn, were described as referring to Enron "in glowing terms."'

"Now, would you care to address these claims? And would you be willing to furnish a list of all the energy companies that have made contributions to your organization?"

GREENPEACE: "Senator, we deeply resent the insinuation that Greenpeace might have consorted politically with any company engaged in the furtherance of a nonrenewable resource."

CHAIRMAN: "You are testifying under oath. Did you or did you not benefit from Enron's support of the Kyoto Protocol?"

GREENPEACE: "Senator, Greenpeace did not have political relations with that company."

CHAIRMAN: "So there is no material benefit?"

GREENPEACE: "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

CHAIRMAN: "The witness's evasiveness and attempts at obfuscation will not prevent this committee from discovering the truth about Greenpeace's intimacy with Enron. I assure you that Greenpeace will not escape the stain of association with that company. And if we can't do it, I'm certain that a vigilant and balanced news media certainly will."

GREENPEACE: "I wouldn't hold my breath on that last part, Senator."