Green groups divided on Clinton’s oil interest ties

Her independence from foundation’s backers questioned.

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton’s connections to oil and gas interests has created a dilemma for some environmental groups, troubling activists for whom she would be the natural candidate to support for president.

The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate’s environmental record has come under renewed scrutiny after the Wall Street Journal reported that the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative have accepted large donations from Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

The groups also got money from foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter, and from an office of the Canadian government in charge of promoting the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would help transport crude oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico but is opposed by environmentalists.

“It’s hard to believe that they don’t think they are getting something for their contributions,” said Ben Schreiber, head of climate and energy at Friends of the Earth, one of the largest environmental groups in the United States.

Clinton’s spokesman referred requests for comment to the Clinton Foun- dation, which did not respond. The foundation has said that if she runs, it will re-examine its policy on accepting donations from foreign interests.

The foundation’s connections to the oil industry potentially complicate Clinton’s relationship with environmental groups, whose supporters form an important part of the Democratic base.

Any sign of ambivalence on climate change policies could hurt Clinton’s support among progressive voters, said Jamie Henn, a spokesman for 350 Action, which claims a large network of environmental activists.

“This isn’t an election where we can get some fancy rhetoric but no real commitments, said Henn, warning that 350 Action could target Clinton with rallies similar to the anti-Keystone protests it aimed at President Barack Obama if she fails to take a strong stand on climate change.

Many green groups normally quick to attack politicians linked to oil and gas companies declined to comment on the Clinton Foundation’s relationship with these donors.

The Environmental Defense Action Fund had no comment because it does not have anyone with knowledge of the subject, a spokesman said. Another business-friendly green group, the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, also declined, saying it would discuss the issues “when we have declared candidates.” The World Wildlife Fund had no comment as well.

The reluctance to criticize Clinton reflects her mixed record on climate change. She has made two recent appearances at green-related events, addressing a League of Conservation Voters dinner in December, where she talked about the need to produce natural gas in a way that minimizes pollution. She also spoke at a green energy conference in September.

Her environmental record as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 includes launching a global initiative to reduce emissions of soot and some greenhouse gases, though not targeting carbon dioxide, the main culprit in global warming.

But she was also an aggressive advocate, while secretary, for expanding the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract shale oil and gas in Eastern Europe, China and India under a program called the Global Shale Gas Initiative.

GETTY IMAGES Hillary Rodham Clinton has backed efforts to cut greenhouse gases but also has supported the controversial method of fracking to extract shale oil and gas.