Congressional lobbyists working for fossil fuel firms that are exacerbating the climate crisis are simultaneously representing more than 300 local governments raising funding to recover from climate damage, according to a new analysis.<\/p>\n
The research by F Minus<\/a> and Make Polluters Pay<\/a> reviewed congressional lobbying disclosures for the first quarter of 2026, finding that another 568 local governments hired fossil fuel lobbyists to work on non-climate related issues during that time, some of which included climate adjacent issues, like healthcare and home insurance.<\/p>\n Dozens of lobbying firms were identified by researchers as working on both sides of climate action. James Browning, the founder and executive director of F Minus, said local governments who hire these firms to lobby for climate mitigation, disaster relief, and wildlife conservation likely don\u2019t know that the same firms are working for clients like ExxonMobil<\/a> and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which critics say are pushing to further dependence on fossil fuels. \u201cThey are locked into these relationships with big firms and may also not know they are the ones blocking climate efforts,\u201d Browning said.<\/p>\n For example, the analysis shows US multinational law firm Greenberg Traurig has lobbied for three fossil fuel entities (API, ConocoPhillips and the Western States Petroleum Association in California) that have opposed state-level legislation aimed at holding fossil fuel companies financially accountable for their historic climate-warming emissions and using that revenue, in the form of climate superfunds, to support climate mitigation costs. Miami-Dade county, in Florida, hired the firm to lobby for shoreline protection and Everglades restoration. \u201cThat\u2019s a glaring conflict,\u201d Browning said.<\/p>\n The mayor of Miami-Dade county didn\u2019t respond to a request for comment about the perceived conflict of interest.<\/p>\n Westchester county and the city of Rochester, both in New York, also hired Greenberg Traurig, despite the fact that these local governments could lose mitigation monies if fossil fuel clients of the firm are successful in invalidating New York\u2019s climate superfund legislation, Browning said. \u201cGreenberg Traurig really represents the cynical extreme on this issue,\u201d he said. \u201cBetween their congressional and state lobbying operations they work for all the opponents of these superfund bills and biggest funders of climate denialism.\u201d Westchester county\u2019s executive didn\u2019t respond to a request for comment about the firm\u2019s other clients with competing interests, nor did the city of Rochester\u2019s mayor.<\/p>\n Greenberg Traurig also didn\u2019t respond to a request for comment about working for local governments that are seeking funding for climate-related damage, while also representing fossil fuel companies. In a 2024 interview<\/a> with LEADERS magazine, the lobbying firm\u2019s executive chairman, Richard Rosenbaum, said that the firm has expanded its reach and capabilities \u201cto advise clients who are building a more sustainable world\u201d.<\/p>\n New York and Vermont passed climate superfund legislation in 2024. This year, another 13 states considered such laws. Cassidy DiPaola, with the pro-climate superfund campaign Make Polluters Pay, said that member groups in the states where superfund legislation has been introduced reported having encouraging conversations with lawmakers about the bills, only to later see those same lawmakers vote against the legislation. For example, in New Jersey, organizers saw more than a hundred<\/a> business groups oppose climate superfund legislation, but more public testimony taken in favor of the bill overall.<\/p>\n \u201cThe bill was widely popular, so many people wanted this bill,\u201d she said. \u201cWe felt like a lot of folks were on board and then all of a sudden all of our members were reporting that there were so many industry lobbyists at the capitol and they\u2019d never seen it before.\u201d<\/p>\n A different new report by Brown University shows that the majority of people and groups who testified on state-level climate superfund bills were in favor of the legislation. But across all four times climate superfund bills were introduced in New Jersey, more registered lobbyists opposed the legislation than supported it. In every state legislature where the bills were introduced, fossil fuel companies opposed them. \u201cWhen we talk about getting dark dirty money out of politics that means fossil fuel industry dollars that are walking into the capitol in a suit, as a lobbyist,\u201d DiPaola said.<\/p>\n The Brown University Climate and Development Lab (CDL) report looks at the \u201cwar of words\u201d recorded in the publicly available testimony and lobbying records on climate superfund bills. But there is no way to systematically analyze the influence lobbyists have in closed-door meetings with legislators, said Timmons Roberts, who heads the CDL. \u201cA lot of the powerful interests don\u2019t speak up much. They work behind the scenes,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The Brown University researchers found that opponents of climate superfund legislation in New Jersey included business associations, fossil fuel corporations, conservative groups and labor unions. The groups repeated nine debunked claims<\/a>, including the assertion that climate superfund legislation would increase costs for businesses and consumers by forcing fossil fuel companies to increase fuel prices, despite the fact that economists have pointed out oil is a global commodity and one oil company could not raise prices without risking sales to competitors.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s fairly preposterous that a state proposing a fee on the big oil firms would change the price of oil in the state when it\u2019s a global commodity,\u201d Roberts said. \u201cThe way these claims work is they\u2019re said with authority and conviction and repeated a lot.\u201d<\/p>\n Trevor Culhane, the lead author of the Brown University report, said business associations<\/a> often oppose climate legislation on the grounds of costs. But \u201cresidents are already paying for the costs of climate damages and these policies are intended to relieve some of the burden of climate change costs,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n