ExxonMobil’s recent oil spill dumped some 200,000 gallons into Mayflower, Ark., killed wildlife, and caused 22 homes to be evacuated. As the Natural Resources committee takes up another bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) argued at a hearing that the spill is more evidence the Keystone XL pipeline is a safe bet for Americans.

Comparing the safety of a pipeline to other transportation methods, Mullin said there is no reason to make a “big deal” about the spill:

Would we really rather ship oil across the oceans? You’re talking about a catastrophe, we’re buying the oil. The percentages of barrels that are shipped daily from rail, from road, and from water the accidents versus the pipeline accidents, it’s a fraction.Your group is making a big deal about this ExxonMobil spill? I think Exxon should be patted on the back for the way they handled this. Yes this was horrible, yes we don’t like to see it, but they handled it. They did a great job handling it. I think they showed an example of what could be done when a catastrophe happens.

Watch it:

In fact, Exxon has been heavily criticized for its public dismissal of the harm and scope of the spill. And thanks to a technicality, the company can avoid paying taxes toward the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund — an exemption that applies to most tar-sands crude.

Mullin also claimed the pipeline would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, which he linked to acts like the Boston Marathon bombing. “I mean, would we rather buy oil from the Middle East that sponsors the acts that we see like at the marathon that we just saw yesterday?” he said. “I don’t know if that was actually sponsored by them or not but that’s the acts that they support.” Setting aside his sheer speculation over the cause of the tragedy in Boston, Mullin’s claims about reducing foreign oil dependence just don’t add up. Keystone XL guarantees more oil is shipped overseas, not less: The pipeline moves Canadian oil across the U.S. straight to the Gulf of Mexico, where it is refined and then exported. A Department of Energy analysis noted that Keystone XL will have virtually no impact on Middle East imports.

For the record, oil and gas companies rank among the freshman representative’s largest donors.

On Monday, President Obama nominated Gina McCarthy to replace outgoing Environmental Protection Agency Chief Lisa Jackson.

Widely known as Obama’s “green quarterback,” McCarthy has helped shape landmark mercury and air toxics standards, along with greenhouse gas regulations, as the current head of the Office of Air and Radiation. In addition to serving at the EPA, she also worked under two Republican governors, including Mitt Romney. McCarthy helped implement strict standards slashing carbon and mercury pollution from the state’s “filthy five” coal-fired power plants when she served in Massachusetts.

Over her two-decade career, McCarthy has drawn unusual praise from Republican and energy-industry admirers — a tough feat at an agency that is often the polluters and their allies’ favorite target.

1. Former Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell (R):
Rell appointed McCarthy to lead Connecticut’s Department of Environmental Protection. “I have said all along that Connecticut’s next DEP commissioner must be a person of unquestioned vision, leadership, and commitment to the environment,” Rell said in a statement. “Gina has an outstanding record of accomplishment on key environmental issues.”

2. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.):
Inhofe supported a temporary hold on McCarthy’s confirmation in 2009. Even so, he eventually embraced her confirmation (granted, the climate-denier senator hoped the EPA would chart a different, more polluter-friendly course). “I supported Regina McCarthy’s nomination today because I think she possesses the knowledge, experience, and temperament to oversee a very important office at EPA,” Inhofe said in a statement.

3. House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chair John Shimkus (R-Ill.):
Shimkus is a sharp critic of the EPA, but praised how the air chief navigated the EPA’s cross-state air pollution rule. “She was helpful in allowing that project,” Shimkus told E&E News. “It showed me, personally, some willingness to understand capital investment and assumption of risk.”

4. Former Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio):
During McCarthy’s first confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. Voinovich of Ohio said, “Ms. McCarthy brings over 20 years of experience as an environmental regulator at the local and state level. I know those experiences are going to serve her well in the new capacity. I’m comforted by the fact that you have state experience and as a result of that I think we’ll have a better understanding of … what the implications are … of the decisions you are going to be making on ordinary folks out in the states.”

5. Reagan EPA official and steel industry representative Charles Warren:
“At EPA, as a regulator, you’re always asking people to do things they don’t want to do,” said Warren, a top EPA official in the Reagan administration who now represents industries such as steel companies. “But Gina’s made an effort to reach out to industries while they’re developing regulations. She has a good reputation.”

6. American Electric Power:
The electric utility that depends heavily on coal was a major critic of clean air rules in Obama’s first term. But according to the National Journal, officials were still positive about McCarthy. “We talked about timing, technology, and cost,” AEP’s Vice President of Environmental Services John McManus said. “My sense is that Gina is listening, has an open mind, she wants to hear the concerns of the regulated sector.” He added, “Did she do all the things we thought would be best? No, but we do see that she’s trying to do things that would achieve regulatory balance.”

7. Alliance Of Automobile Manufacturers:
The vice president of the trade group said “she’s a pragmatic policymaker” with “aspirational environmental goals, but she accepts real-world economics.” Support from the trade group undermines a conservative critique of the EPA’s rule on greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles.

There are signs Senate Republicans will draw out the nomination regardless of McCarthy’s qualifications — simply because it is the EPA, an agency Republicans voted to abolish as recently as 2011. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the top Republican on Environment and Public Works, has already pressed McCarthy for more “transparency” regarding “the scientific methods used to base the EPA’s regulatory agenda.” Even so, McCarthy’s prior Senate confirmation in 2009 and wide-ranging support makes conservative opposition more difficult.

ThinkProgress War Room Senior Climate/Energy Researcher Tiffany Germain contributed research to this post.

A version of this post originally appeared on Climate Progress.

Apparently unable to find real activists, the coal industry paid astroturfers $50 to wear pro-coal T-shirts at an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hearing yesterday.

The EPA hearings, held in Chicago and Washington, D.C., were focused on the agency’s first-ever carbon standards for new power plants. The industry has adamantly opposed these standards, as well as standards on mercury — a pollutant that even Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) admits is harmful.

This year, coal is throwing around its weight by spending tens of millions of dollars on media advertising and political contributions.

Coal is also engaging in fake advocacy campaigns, known as astroturfing. In a Craigslist ad found by the Environmental Law & Policy Center in Chicago, a coal group promised participants $50 to “wear a t-shirt in support of an energy project.” Upon further digging, the Sierra Club blog pieced together much of the deleted Craigslist ad:

People needed to attend a public meeting (Tinley Park /Chicago)

Reply to: px6mq-3031150602@gigs.craigslist.org (email address no longer valid)

Looking for people THIS THURSDAY, MAY 24 who want to make a couple of dollars for a few hours of your time.

All you need to do is wear a t-shirt in support of an energy project for two hours during the public meeting. We will be departing the Tinely Park convention center at 8:15 am for the meeting and we will be back by 1:30 pm. For your time we will pay you $50 cash and provide you lunch once we return to the convention center.

If you can’t beat ‘em, cheat ‘em.

Cross-posted from Climate Progress.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has benefited from Big Oil and Big Coal’s backing, which have poured more than $16 million into ads attacking President Barack Obama’s energy policies. As a favor, Romney says he plans to open public lands and water to drilling while undoing safety and environmental protections.

Below, we take a side-by-side look at Obama’s and Romney’s policies and their divisions on fossil fuels, clean energy, public health, and pollution. Beneath the chart is a more detailed comparison of the candidates’ energy proposals and rhetoric.

Oil and gas production

Obama:

• Domestic oil production reached its highest level in eight years last year. Between oil and gas drilling rigs, the United States now has more rigs at work than the rest of the world combined. Imports fell to lowest level in 16 years, under 50 percent of oil consumption. [White House, 3/12/12]

• Raised safety standards for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, strengthening well design, testing, control equipment, and workplace safety. The region was not hurt economically by a temporary moratorium, which has the same unemployment as two years ago and had rising personal income in 2011. [White House, 3/30/12 (PDF), NOLA, 4/15/12]

• Crude oil production from federal lands and waters was higher in 2011 than any of the last three years of the Bush administration. [Energy Information Administration, 3/14/12 (PDF)]

Romney:

• Opens up the Florida portion of the Gulf of Mexico to new drilling, the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves, public lands, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Accelerates drilling permits. [MittRomney.com, 2011 (PDF)]

• Called the temporary moratorium on drilling in the Gulf following the Deepwater Horizon disaster “illegal.” [CBS News, 3/9/12]

Big Oil subsidies

Obama:

• Calls on Congress to end oil subsidies and to double down on clean energy investments. [White House, 3/28/12]

• Pledged to cut subsidies for oil, coal, and natural gas internationally, among G20 nations. [Economist, 10/1/09]

Romney:

• Romney’s plan cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, but does not make specific mention of oil and gas loopholes which let oil companies pay much lower effective federal rates. [Mitt Romney.com, 2011]

• Romney has blasted Obama for wanting to close these loopholes for the industry, saying the president is increasing taxes. [MittRomney.com, 3/4/12]

• Asked directly in an interview about whether he is for or against subsidizing Big Oil, Romney responded: “I’m not sure precisely what big tax breaks we’re talking about.” [Fox News, 4/3/12]

• Romney supports the House GOP Ryan budget, which preserves the $40 billion in subsidies for the oil and gas industry. [Center for American Progress, 3/20/12]

Gas Prices

Obama:

• “There’s no silver bullet. Anybody who tells you otherwise isn’t really looking for a solution; they’re trying to ride the political wave of the moment.” [LA Times, 3/16/12]

• Domestic oil production is at its highest level in eight years, but drilling has no correlation to gas prices, the Associated Press confirms. [AP, 3/22/12]

• Rein in market oil speculators with more funding for market oversight and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, increased penalties for illegal activity. Dodd-Frank financial reform includes rules on speculation. [CNN, 4/17/12; Media Matters, 4/18/12]

Romney:

• “He’s now decided that gasoline prices should come down. The gas hike trio has been going in the other direction. Time for them to go, probably hand in their resignations if he’s really serious about that.” [Boston Globe, 3/19/12]

• Calls to repeal Dodd Frank and opposes reining in Wall Street speculators, calling Obama’s move “gimmickry” [MittRomney.com, 4/17/12]

Energy efficiency

Obama:

• Finalizing new modern standards requiring cars and light-duty trucks to achieve an average fuel economy rating of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 — double the rate in 2010. These savings will cut U.S. oil use by 2.2 million barrels per day by 2025—a move that will save drivers $8,000 per vehicle due to fewer gasoline purchases compared to a 2010 car. [White House, 3/12/12]

• Began the Better Buildings Initiative, which makes commercial facilities 20 percent more efficient by 2020. [NYT, 12/3/11]

• Directed federal agencies to make $2 billion worth of energy efficiency upgrades in two years. [NYT, 12/3/11]

Romney:

• Against raising standards for energy-efficient lighting, which was coauthored by Republicans and signed into law by President George W. Bush. “The government would have banned Thomas Edison’s light bulb,” Romney said. “Oh yeah, Obama’s regulators actually did.” [Huffington Post, 3/19/12]

• Supports the House GOP Ryan budget, which would cut investments in energy efficiency by 20 percent in 2013. [House.gov, 3/19/12 (PDF)]

Public lands

Obama:

• Announced he would “allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes.” [White House, 1/24/12]

• Signed a sweeping public lands bill in 2009 that designated 2 million acres of wilderness and three national parks. [AP, 3/31/09]

• Created a national monument of a Civil War-era Fort Monroe, Va., embracing the 1906 Antiquities Act. [National Trust For Historic Preservation, 11/1/11]

Romney:

• Romney said “I haven’t studied […] what the purpose is of” public lands. But he finds it unacceptable when conservation is “designed to satisfy, let’s say, the most extreme environmentalists, from keeping a population from developing their coal, their gold, their other resources for the benefit of the state.” [McClatchy, 2/16/12]

• Fully embraced the House Republican budget from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), calling it “bold and brilliant.” It sells off 3.3 millions of acres of national parks and public lands. [ThinkProgress, 3/21/12]

Global warming

Obama:

• “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.” [White House, 1/27/10]

• State Department is leading a group of countries in a program that cuts global warming pollutants like soot, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons. [NYT, 2/16/12]

• Issued the first ever carbon pollution rules for power plants, affecting new coal-fired power plants. [NPR, 3/27/12]

Romney:

• Doesn’t believe carbon pollution is a threat, reversing his stance as governor: “I don’t think carbon is a pollutant in the sense of harming our bodies.” [Politico, 7/18/11]

• “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.” [CBS, 10/28/11]

• Says the Clean Air Act doesn’t apply to carbon emissions: “My view is that the EPA in getting into carbon and regulating carbon has gone beyond the original intent of that legislation, and I would not take it there.” [Politico, 7/18/11]

Air pollution from power plants

Obama:

• Unveiled historic rules that limit harmful mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants. The initiative prevents 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks a year, and 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms. [EPA, 12/21/11]

Romney:

• “Aggressively” develop all our coal sources. “Coal is America’s most abundant energy source. We have reserves that—at current rates of uses—will last for the next 200 years of electricity production in an industry that directly employs perhaps 200,000 workers.” [NYT, 4/3/12, MittRomney.com (PDF)]

• Against new EPA regulations of harmful mercury and air pollutants from coal: “I think the EPA has gotten completely out of control for a very simple reason. It is a tool in the hands of the president to crush the private enterprise system, to crush our ability to have energy, whether it’s oil, gas, coal, nuclear.” [The Hill, 12/5/11]

Fuel-efficient cars

Obama:

• New modern standards require cars and some trucks to achieve an average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. This cuts U.S. oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels of oil per day by 2025, saving Americans $1.7 trillion and cuts carbon pollution. [White House, 11/17/11]

• Set a goal that by 2015 there would be 1 million electric vehicles on the road. [White House, 3/12/12]

Romney:

• Disparaged the Chevrolet Volt as “an idea whose time has not come” and “I’m not sure America was ready for the Chevy Volt.” [Michigan Live, 12/23/11, MSNBC 4/5/12]

• Against fuel efficiency standards, calling it “disadvantageous for domestic manufacturers.” [WJR Radio, 2/23/12]

• Advocates ending federal loan program helping companies develop and produce efficient cars. [Orange Country Register, 10/24/11]

Clean energy

Obama:

• “I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.” [State of the Union, 1/24/12]

• Transforming the Pentagon into a clean energy operation, reducing the military’s dependence on fossil fuels that cost the Pentagon up to $20 billion annually. Investing in hybrid batteries. [National Journal, 4/11/12]

Romney:

• “You can’t drive a car with a windmill on it.” [ThinkProgress, 3/6/12]

• Endorses the Ryan House Republican budget, which gives a 60 percent funding increase to coal, oil, and natural gas, while it decreases funding for research on vehicle batteries and solar projects, and loans for fuel-efficient cars. [Politico, 4/17/12]

• Against the government promoting clean energy, though supports tax loopholes for oil: “Let’s pretend for a moment that [Solyndra] didn’t go bankrupt. Let’s just pretend it was successful … When he picks one [business] that the government gets behind with $500 million, the investments in all the others disappear, because no one wants to compete with the government.” [The Hill, 12/20/11]

Green jobs

Obama:

• Historic level of investment in clean energy, a sector now with 3.1 million Americans employed. In 2008, Obama promised to create 5 million green jobs. [AP, 3/22/12]

Romney:

• Repeatedly called green jobs fake, for example calling them “illusory” in an op-ed. “[Obama] keeps talking about green jobs, where are they?” [OC Register, 10/24/11, League of Conservation Voters, 9/15/11]

• Against renewable energy production credits, which risks the end of 37,000 jobs, according to a figure from Navigant Consulting. [Chicago Tribune, 2/17/12]

Find out what Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has to say about these and other issues.