Mourdock could benefit from climate regulations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A leading tea party candidate who hopes to knock off venerable Sen. Richard Lugar in next May's GOP primary has campaigned heavily against measures to combat climate change even as he holds stock in an energy company that's banking on those regulations to help build a market for its product.

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock holds up to $350,000 in stock in USA Synthetic Fuel Corp. and its parent company, Global Energy Inc., according to his latest federal financial disclosure filings. The Cincinnati-based companies are seeking financing for a coal-gasification plant in Lima, Ohio, that has been pitched to investors and Obama administration officials as a clean energy alternative to more traditional power sources.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, USA Synthetic Fuel said part of its business strategy relies on being able to produce synthetic natural gas cheaper than traditional natural gas suppliers as demand for the fuel grows under expected climate change regulations.

Tea party members and Republicans nationwide say the regulations being pushed by the Obama administration amount to a national "energy tax" because they would increase the overall price of power by limiting cheaper, but dirtier, fuel sources.

Mourdock said his holdings, which he received as payment for geological consulting he did about a decade ago, don't create a conflict of interest because he wouldn't benefit financially if he succeeded in helping block the climate change regulations. He said he hasn't sold the stock because he wants to recoup the money he's owed for his work, but he wouldn't say how much he was owed or whether the stock was now worth that amount.

He said he can't sell his holdings in Global Energy, which could be worth as much as $250,000, because it's not publicly traded.

"I'm trying to get paid for my work," he said.

Mourdock's situation is not a traditional conflict of interest in the sense of him benefiting from policies he's pushing, but it does raise questions of where his allegiances stand: with the tea party philosophy or with his stock portfolio, said Julia Vaughn, spokeswoman for Common Cause Indiana, a public interest group.

"It begs bigger questions in terms of how does he make decisions about what his policies are going to be," she said.

Climate change legislation and the federal health care overhaul helped fuel the rise of the tea party nationwide in 2009. Tea party supporters unhappy with what they called the intrusion of government used both as a rallying cry that led to Republican dominance in the 2010 midterm elections.

While measures to address climate change have almost no chance of ever passing a Republican-controlled House, the Obama administration has charged ahead with its own efforts via the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mourdock, a geologist from coal-rich southwest Indiana, campaigned heartily against climate change legislation in 2009, delivering a speech to the tea-party affiliated Americans for Prosperity and writing a letter to the editor published in newspapers across the state. Then controlled by Democrats, the House passed the bill, but it went nowhere in the Senate.

"The proposed legislation would require businesses to lower their emissions of the so-called 'greenhouse gases' and cause utility prices to increase," Mourdock wrote in the September 2009 letter.

Mourdock told The Associated Press he does not think climate change is manmade or as disastrous as scientists say it is. He also said he will continue to campaign against the environmental regulations being pushed by the Obama administration.

He said he has no plans now to divest the stocks, the values of which are listed only as a range on his federal financial form. The stock in both companies accounts for 5 percent to 28 percent of Mourdock's personal investments.

In forms filed with the SEC, USA Synthetic Fuels said it would be in a good position to take advantage of the Obama-driven climate change regulations because it captures all of the carbon dioxide when it converts coal to synthetic natural gas.

Vice President Dwight Lockwood said his company has always planned to capture its carbon dioxide emissions and believes climate change regulations are inevitable, making it better to be ahead of the curve.

"Our decision to do it is philosophical," Lockwood said. "You can read the tea leaves and know that somebody is going to have to do something, so we may as well get started."

Greg Fettig, co-chairman of Hoosiers for a Conservative Senate, said he opposes the climate change regulations but thinks Mourdock's investment makes smart financial sense.

"He knows coal, it doesn't mean he subscribes to global warming," Fettig said. "I would invest in what I know."


  • No problem or story here.
    GE CEO Jeff Immelt both pushed for regulations effectively banning "normal" light bulbs, and stands to benefit from it. This is a textbook example of the link between political contributions (primarily to Democrats, but presumably across the board; no reason not to hedge your bets) and legislation that is both unnecessarily--and probably unConstitutionally--intrusive and anti-free market. If these light bulbs are worth what they are charging, they don't need any legislation to sell them. That legislation ONLY benefits them if they are NOT worth the money.

    Here, you have a politician lobbying AGAINST his own financial interests, to at least some extent. He has business holdings that he seems more or less to have inherited, that are not worth the work he put into them at the moment, and not liquid; and he has personal views against that form of crony Capitalism centered on the farcical notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming. No conflict, and no story. If anything, this is an example of bad luck. I'm sure he would rather not have those holdings, even if as a businessman he can't help hoping he might yet have a winning lottery ticket.

    For a even and reasonably thorough treatment of this silly idea of Global Warming (that is the thesis; "Climate Change" is indifferentiable in practice or theory from "weather"), go here: http://moderatesunited.blogspot.com/2008/01/global-warming.html
  • At least he's consistent
    At least his stupidity won't hurt just his constituents. That's refreshing.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.