Reply With Quote
duh, google "air pollution from fracking"
Frackers and their corrupt, bought state AGs know they pollute air AND water, but don't want spend their profits stopping their pollution.
Nothing the frackers and their corrupt, bought state AGs is trustworthy since BigOil profits are being protected.
duh, google "air pollution from fracking"
Abandoned Wells Leak Powerful Greenhouse Gas
There are 300,000 to 500,000 abandoned oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania, and some of them might be leaking significant quan ies of the potent greenhouse gas methane
"There definitely are leaky abandoned oil and gas wells out there, and we should really consider including them in greenhouse gas inventories," said Mary Kang, a researcher currently at Stanford University who did the study during graduate school at Princeton University.
Abandoned wells are ones that are no longer in production.
Doing a rough calculation, the researchers found that abandoned wells in Pennsylvania may have contributed 4 to 7 percent of the total man-made methane emissions from all sectors (agriculture, wastes, oil and gas, and others) in 2010.
Wells found unplugged
The study began while Kang was researching rock formations that can store carbon dioxide as part of carbon capture and sequestration projects. She found that abandoned gas wells could serve as potential pathways for CO2 to leak back into the atmosphere. She theorized that methane, which is the primary component of natural gas, could use the same pathway and escape into the atmosphere through abandoned well bores.
The scientists chose 19 abandoned wells in western Pennsylvania, a region that has been drilled since 1859, to study in greater detail. Five of them were plugged, a process where workers pour cement into a retired well to trap gases inside. Most were unplugged.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...reenhouse-gas/
so who owns, is responsible for unplugged and/or leaking wells?
Don't you kind of have to believe in Anthropogenic Global Climate Change for this to be significant?
From the article...
They share a common philosophy. Where is it written that an Attorney General cannot take up a cause in which they believe? Did the lawmakers that passed the Affordable Care Act write it? No. We've since learned a major architect of the legislation was a private contractor working for the White House and on loan to the Congress. Who else had their hand in writing that POS legislation?They share a common philosophy about the reach of the federal government, but the companies also have billions of dollars at stake.
What made it "secretive?" Did the Attorney Generals attempt to stop the release of the e-mails, a la Obama administration in just about every scandal that arises? did the Attorney Generals use fake accounts through which to communicate with the industry leaders, a la EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, er, I mean Richard Windsor?The email exchange from October 2011, obtained through an open-records request, offers a hint of the unprecedented, secretive alliance that Mr. Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general have formed with some of the nation’s top energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory agenda, an investigation by The New York Times has found.
Seriously, the New York Times will fabricate out of whole cloth the same types of scandals they won't lift a finger to investigate in the Obama administration.
My question stands, is the opening paragraph true?
If it is, the Attorney Generals have obligation to their cons uents to address it -- regardless of whether or not they're billionaires, corporations, or Joe Plumber. That they have the industry -- that better understands the cir stances -- help them draft their argument (done all the time for all sorts of federal, state, and local issues) isn't of much consequence unless you're suggesting they are trying to advance a lie.The letter to the Environmental Protection Agency from Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma carried a blunt accusation: Federal regulators were grossly overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by energy companies drilling new natural gas wells in his state.
That's why my question is germane to the discussion.
believe? I KNOW AGW is TRUE
Yeah, I get that.
"Attorney General cannot take up a cause in which they believe?"
belief?
they, corrupt every one of them, above all are PAID to dance to BigCorp's tune
Why do you conflate legislators with attorney generals? One is a political position, the other is not (or should not be anyways). An AG is simply a legal advisor to the government with certain legal perks.
The fact that there was no actual disclosure when the do ents were submitted and it took a FOIA request to get the emails?
My response stands: I think the answer, true or false, it's completely immaterial to the content of the article.
I already stated that I have no problem with the AG bringing up cases from private companies.
But I also think they should disclose their fundraising connections with said companies, and there should be some type of oversight to ensure that this kind of connections are not being abused (ie: do only companies providing funds get this level of attention from the AG). Otherwise, you end up with these kind of su ions...
Why is the AG also handling legislation from these companies, even though he's not a legislator? Why is the AG assistant using the AG office's email system and time to procure fundraising for an AG's fundraising group?
Are those also "obligations to their cons uents"? You don't think at least some of those are clear conflict of interests? What does true or false on your question has anything to do with those cases?
The fact is the AG position has changed quite a bit in recent years (for the worse, IMO), this is indeed a new development. The record amounts of money raised (by both blue and red) on this office is a clear indicator to the politicization of said office, and it does it a disservice.
dp
A political position. No parenthetical qualifier necessary.
So, should District Attorneys just cc the media on their e-mails? I guess I don't understand your point. If the DAs didn't view it as an issue requiring disclosure and they complied with the FOIA request, seems to me there was nothing secretive about it.
And, we disagree. My point is the Times is, for their own political purposes, making a mountain out of a molehill. I tried to wade through the article but, it was just two many inches of copy using words such as "unprecedented" and "secretive," etc... Did they ever allege the District Attorneys actually violated a law?
Again, did the District Attorneys try to hide from whom they received contributions?
Perhaps the AGs are getting ready to sue the federal government again. Seems to be a routine step on the way to filing an action, putting the feds on notice that they've been caught fudging the numbers.
Where's the conflict here? Seems to me if the federal government is fudging the numbers, the AGs cons uents are negatively impacted.
I'm not sure I would argue with you here but, absent an allegation of criminal wrongdoing, I think the NYTimes is doing the bidding of someone else.
Disagree completely. He's a legal advisor to the state, his job is to provide legal opinions, not political opinions. However he feels politically should have no bearing in his opinions. That's not what's asked of his position.
No, but they should either disclose their fundraising ties with some of these companies or preclude themselves handling cases from such companies. Judges do this all the time (at the very least, when it's brought to their attention). A FOIA request is literally the last legal recourse to obtain this kind of information, and while not always an adversarial process, it's a system that was put in place due largely to the reluctance of providing transparency in government affairs.
Was he forthcoming about the opposition to the proposed regulation coming directly from such a company? Why wouldn't he be, if, as you say, they have expertise? Would the fact that these companies are filling in his campaign coffers have anything to do with it?
What does that has to do with handling state legislation from these companies or using the AGs office to procure funds for an AG fundraiser group?
if you don't see the conflict of interest there, then that's your loss, Yoni.
I'm sorry, I'm still looking for an affirmative attempt to hide the relationship between the AGs and the corporations.
I just bet you are
What is the purpose of having an Attorney General in the first place?
Are you completely dense or completely disingenuous?
State governments are sooo much cheaper to buy and influence than the federal one. Good and bad that.
Federal regulators were grossly overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by energy companies drilling new natural gas wells in his state.
http://endocrinedisruption.org/chemi.../air-pollutionAbstract: This exploratory study was designed to assess air quality in a rural western Colorado area where residences and gas wells co-exist. Sampling was conducted before, during, and after drilling and hydraulic fracturing of a new natural gas well pad. Weekly air sampling for 1 year revealed that the number of non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHCs) and their concentrations were highest during the initial drilling phase and did not increase during hydraulic fracturing in this closed-loop system. Methylene chloride, a toxic solvent not reported in products used in drilling or hydraulic fracturing, was detected 73% of the time; several times in high concentrations. A literature search of the health effects of the NMHCs revealed that many had multiple health effects, including 30 that affect the endocrine system, which is susceptible to chemical impacts at very low concentrations, far less than government safety standards. Selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were at concentrations greater than those at which prenatally exposed children in urban studies had lower developmental and IQ scores. The human and environmental health impacts of the NMHCs, which are ozone precursors, should be examined further given that the natural gas industry is now operating in close proximity to human residences and public lands.
Burden of proof, as always is on the person making the assertion.
I would have to know what "federal regulators" were estimating about the amount of air pollution, and then find the underlying data.
Until then, given the economic impact I would have to be highly skeptical of claims that tobacco didn't cause cancer made by cigarrette companies.
Oklahoma attorney general denies 'secretive alliance'
Okay, let's start with the NYTimes hyperbolic first paragraph which, I admit, I accepted on its face.“What the New York Times failed to address was that we were right,” Pruitt said. “The communication was a communication that goes to the heart of state primacy and state sovereignty and the regulation of hydraulic fracturing and that the BLM was exceeding its authority. They haven’t acted, because they don’t have that authority, to date.”
Now, let's look at the first paragraph of the letter to EPA Administrator Richard Windsor -- damnit, I mean, Lisa Jackson, (also available at the NYTimes story link)."The letter to the Environmental Protection Agency from Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma carried a blunt accusation: Federal regulators were grossly overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by energy companies drilling new natural gas wells in his state."
Not exactly blunt or accusatory."It has come to my attention that the agency you oversee, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency may be significantly overestimating methane emissions from natural gas production. If true,..."
the letter then goes into great detail about why the concern exists. At no time do I detect the tone to be either blunt or accusatory.
EPA, the parts that aren't captured, works to protect human health and the environment
red state/BigOil AGs work to protect their paymasters' profits.
ac·cu·sa·to·ry"It has come to my attention that the agency you oversee, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency may be significantly overestimating methane emissions from natural gas production. If true,..."
əˈkyo͞ozəˌtôrē/
adjective
adjective: accusatory
indicating or suggesting that one believes a person has done something wrong.
don't get the beef with the NYTimes though... I mean, is there anything on the story that you know it's factually incorrect?
actually, I'm sure you do have a beef with the NYTimes aka MSM... never mind...
I saw the letter as more concerned with whether or not the agency could have repeated a prior mistake, not that they were intentionally committing a wrongdoing.
The Times as been a reliable organ (and I mean that in many senses of the word) for the Left for a very, very long time.
If you say so...
okay
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
