Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance With Attorneys General

[ElNono]

Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance With Attorneys General

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.

But Mr. Pruitt left out one critical point. The three-page letter was written by lawyers for Devon Energy, one of Oklahoma’s biggest oil and gas companies, and was delivered to him by Devon’s chief of lobbying.

“Outstanding!” William F. Whitsitt, who at the time directed government relations at the company, said in a note to Mr. Pruitt’s office. The attorney general’s staff had taken Devon’s draft, copied it onto state government stationery with only a few word changes, and sent it to Washington with the attorney general’s signature. “The timing of the letter is great, given our meeting this Friday with both E.P.A. and the White House.”

Mr. Whitsitt then added, “Please pass along Devon’s thanks to Attorney General Pruitt.”

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.

Attorneys general in at least a dozen states are working with energy companies and other corporate interests, which in turn are providing them with record amounts of money for their political campaigns, including at least $16 million this year.

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/politics/energy-firms-in-secretive-alliance-with-attorneys-general.html?hp

[Yonivore]

Federal regulators were grossly overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by energy companies drilling new natural gas wells in his state.
Is this true?

[ElNono]

Is this true?

That's what Devon Energy claims. You can ask them.

Out of curiosity, is that the only part of that article that caught your attention?

[spurraider21]

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Is this true?

BigCarbon's profits trump science, trump human, environmental health.

"Attorneys general in at least a dozen states are working with energy companies and other corporate interests, which in turn are providing them with record amounts of money for their political campaigns, including at least $16 million this year."

BigCarbon giving $16M to state AG's is a perfect example of the corporatocracy. BigCorps and the 1% own and operate the USA as their private ATM.


"“We are living in the midst of a constitutional crisis,” Mr. Pruitt told energy industry lobbyists and conservative state legislators"

but Pruitt's side is CAUSING the crisis, not solving it.

[boutons_deux]

$1 Spent on Politics = $760 Gained from Federal Gov’t

America's most politically active corporations – like Ford Motor Company, McDonald's and Bank of America – pumped $5.8 billion into federal lobbying and campaign contributions between 2007 and 2012.

An analysis of 14 million records by the Sunlight Foundation found that in return, these companies got $4.4 trillion in federal business and support.

To put that in context, the federal government paid $4.3 trillion in Social Security benefits over the same period to 50 million Americans.

http://www.propublica.org/article/1-spent-on-politics-760-gained-from-federal-govt-and-more-in-muckreads-week

yeah, keep on voting, your vote REALLY counts.

[Yonivore]

That's what Devon Energy claims. You can ask them.

Out of curiosity, is that the only part of that article that caught your attention?
Well, after all the breathless high school gossip-like framing, if it is true, it kind of makes any cooperation between government and the private sector understandable.

The claims of the story are only relevant if that statement is a fabrication.

[boutons_deux]

"any cooperation between government and the private sector understandable."

I've go no problem with govt-business coop, but in our corporatocracy, the 1%, Corporate-Americans, and their investors are always enabled/enriched/protected/empowered while Human-Americans and the environment are harmed, exposed, enfeebled.

iow, it's a zero-sum game, what C-As win, H-As and environment lose.

[Th'Pusher]

Isn't the onus on Devon Energy and the States Attorney Genral to substantiate the claim that the estimates were grossly overestimated?

[Yonivore]

Isn't the onus on Devon Energy and the States Attorney Genral to substantiate the claim that the estimates were grossly overestimated?
Perhaps they did. The story doesn't really concern itself with that does it?

[boutons_deux]

Isn't the onus on Devon Energy and the States Attorney Genral to substantiate the claim that the estimates were grossly overestimated?

EPA is a just another captured agency. My guess is they will fold. If they won't define coal ash as hazmat, ....

Look at the whining and screaming by BigCarbon and BigCorp on reducing ozone from 75 to the HORRIBLY LOW 65-70, which will cause the destruction of the economy.

Repugs and their paymasters do NOTHING but fuck up the country.

[spurraider21]

who is the CEO of Big Carbon?

[ElNono]

Well, after all the breathless high school gossip-like framing, if it is true, it kind of makes any cooperation between government and the private sector understandable.

The claims of the story are only relevant if that statement is a fabrication.

It's apparently not the only instance and not the only company. It's just unfortunate, but not surprising, that you think the story reduces itself to a sentence.

One has to wonder if these AGs are as receptive and accommodating to groups, companies or individuals that do not share the AG political view or provide funding to their campaigns/fundraiser groups.

I personally have no problem with AGs working with the private sector (or any group or individual, really) as they're the people's attorneys. However, I do find a huge conflict of interest in soliciting campaign money or sponsorship in the process. Especially when it's not disclosed and apparently there's no oversight. Reeks of influence peddling.

BTW, in the big picture, it's not just about AGs, but the whole politicization of important areas of the justice system (Holder's DOJ is no different) that's severely undermines the trust we have in justice, IMO.

[Yonivore]

It's apparently not the only instance and not the only company. It's just unfortunate, but not surprising, that you think the story reduces itself to a sentence.

One has to wonder if these AGs are as receptive and accommodating to groups, companies or individuals that do not share the AG political view or provide funding to their campaigns/fundraiser groups.

I personally have no problem with AGs working with the private sector (or any group or individual, really) as they're the people's attorneys. However, I do find a huge conflict of interest in soliciting campaign money or sponsorship in the process. Especially when it's not disclosed and apparently there's no oversight. Reeks of influence peddling.

BTW, in the big picture, it's not just about AGs, but the whole politicization of important areas of the justice system (Holder's DOJ is no different) that's severely undermines the trust we have in justice, IMO.
Well, the story is predicated on something being wrong in the sentence i posted. They fail to explain whether or not the statement is true. If it's true, what's the point of the rest of the story. If it's false, why not demonstrate so and THEN talk about the alleged conspiracy between business and government.

[Yonivore]

There's a difference between financially supporting the truth and financially supporting a political position. Sometimes they can be the same and, it's only a problem for me when I believe they're not. The story leaves that question unexplored.

[ElNono]

Well, the story is predicated on something being wrong in the sentence i posted. They fail to explain whether or not the statement is true. If it's true, what's the point of the rest of the story. If it's false, why not demonstrate so and THEN talk about the alleged conspiracy between business and government.

It actually isn't. The story is predicated in not disclosing that the claims is not the AGs, but an energy company's claims, despite the AG claiming it as it's own after copying it nearly verbatim. Then they proceed to describe numerous different instances of the same behavior, coincidentally from the same companies that provide campaign funds to said AG and related groups.

It's the repeated pattern of questionable behavior that's central to the story.


There's a difference between financially supporting the truth and financially supporting a political position. Sometimes they can be the same and, it's only a problem for me when I believe they're not. The story leaves that question unexplored.

Except that's illegal to peddle influence for financial support, at least in an official capacity, as spelled out in the same article. The reason for that is that there's an obvious conflict of interest, something that apparently you for some reason don't want to acknowledge.

[ElNono]

Yoni, would you be OK with environmental groups doing the same with Democratic AGs while their write their checks to fund their campaigns?

Or would that be the Eco-gate?

[Yonivore]

Yoni, would you be OK with environmental groups doing the same with Democratic AGs while their write their checks to fund their campaigns?

Or would that be the Eco-gate?
I would be surprised if they don't. I mean, the administration bought an economist to go around and pitch the virtues of Obamacare while knowing it was based on lies.

So, again, is the statement true? And, as far as politicians co-opting a position of a financial supporter, that happens all the time. I'm really only bothered if the AGs don't believe the statement is true and they're only doing so for the money.

[ElNono]

I would be surprised if they don't. I mean, the administration bought an economist to go around and pitch the virtues of Obamacare while knowing it was based on lies.

So you would have a problem with that. Not surprising. Thanks.

[Yonivore]

So you would have a problem with that. Not surprising. Thanks.
Yeah, because it was based on a fabrication.

Is the statement made by the AGs and/or companies true or not?

[Yonivore]

You act as though this were a new phenomenon...

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

[ElNono]

:lol who said conflict of interest is a new phenomenon? I certainly do condemn it whenever the situation arises, especially when it's egregious and secretive, such as this case.

but I'm not here to convince you or boutons of anything, tbh, there's no redeeming value in having a conversation with posters that cannot view past the red or blue veil...

[boutons_deux]

pussy eater's false equivalence rules

BigCorp and 1% buying legislator's to increase/enable/protect their wealth, with citizens and the environments paying the costs is not the same as pro-environment, pro-human causes paying legislators to obtain pro-human, pro-environment objectives.

the corruption of the govt is above all done the Repugs and BigCorps, not by citizen voters.

It was the Repug politicized hacks of the SCOTUS5 that has enable corruption of govt by gutting the VRA and C-U, while the Dem justices voted against.

that the Dems are "just as bad" as the Repugs is just ain't so, but that's the main defense you right-wing pricks have when the Repugs are caught screwing up the country.

[Yonivore]

:lol who said conflict of interest is a new phenomenon? I certainly do condemn it whenever the situation arises, especially when it's egregious and secretive, such as this case.

but I'm not here to convince you or boutons of anything, tbh, there's no redeeming value in having a conversation with posters that cannot view past the red or blue veil...
I simply ask if what they allege it true.

[ElNono]

I simply ask if what they allege it true.

I have no idea, tbh... I think the answer, true or false, it's completely immaterial to the content of the article.

[boutons_deux]

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.

[boutons_deux]

duh, google "air pollution from fracking"

[boutons_deux]

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 quantities 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/article/abandoned-wells-leak-powerful-greenhouse-gas/

so who owns, is responsible for unplugged and/or leaking wells?

[Yonivore]

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 quantities 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/article/abandoned-wells-leak-powerful-greenhouse-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?

[Yonivore]

I have no idea, tbh... I think the answer, true or false, it's completely immaterial to the content of the article.
From the article...


They share a common philosophy about the reach of the federal government, but the companies also have billions of dollars at stake.
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?


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.
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?

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?


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.
If it is, the Attorney Generals have obligation to their constituents to address it -- regardless of whether or not they're billionaires, corporations, or Joe Plumber. That they have the industry -- that better understands the circumstances -- 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.

That's why my question is germane to the discussion.

[boutons_deux]

Don't you kind of have to believe in Anthropogenic Global Climate Change for this to be significant?

believe? I KNOW AGW is TRUE

[Yonivore]

believe? I KNOW AGW is TRUE
Yeah, I get that.

[boutons_deux]

"Attorney General cannot take up a cause in which they believe?"

belief? :lol

they, corrupt every one of them, above all are PAID to dance to BigCorp's tune

[ElNono]

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?

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.


What made it "secretive?"

The fact that there was no actual disclosure when the documents were submitted and it took a FOIA request to get the emails?


My question stands, is the opening paragraph true?

My response stands: I think the answer, true or false, it's completely immaterial to the content of the article.


If it is, the Attorney Generals have obligation to their constituents to address it -- regardless of whether or not they're billionaires, corporations, or Joe Plumber. That they have the industry -- that better understands the circumstances -- 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.

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 suspicions...

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 constituents"? 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.

[ElNono]

dp

[Yonivore]

Why do you conflate legislators with attorney generals? One is a political position, the other is...
A political position. No parenthetical qualifier necessary.


The fact that there was no actual disclosure when the documents were submitted and it took a FOIA request to get the emails?
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.


My response stands: I think the answer, true or false, it's completely immaterial to the content of the article.
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?


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 suspicions...
Again, did the District Attorneys try to hide from whom they received contributions?


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?
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.


Are those also "obligations to their constituents"? 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?
Where's the conflict here? Seems to me if the federal government is fudging the numbers, the AGs constituents are negatively impacted.


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.
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.

[ElNono]

A political position. No parenthetical qualifier necessary.

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.


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.

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.


Again, did the District Attorneys try to hide from whom they received contributions?

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?


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?

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.

[Yonivore]

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.

[ElNono]

I'm sorry, I'm still looking for an affirmative attempt to hide the relationship between the AGs and the corporations.

:lol I just bet you are

[pgardn]

I'm sorry, I'm still looking for an affirmative attempt to hide the relationship between the AGs and the corporations.

What is the purpose of having an Attorney General in the first place?

Are you completely dense or completely disingenuous?

[RandomGuy]

Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance With Attorneys General

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.

But Mr. Pruitt left out one critical point. The three-page letter was written by lawyers for Devon Energy, one of Oklahoma’s biggest oil and gas companies, and was delivered to him by Devon’s chief of lobbying.

“Outstanding!” William F. Whitsitt, who at the time directed government relations at the company, said in a note to Mr. Pruitt’s office. The attorney general’s staff had taken Devon’s draft, copied it onto state government stationery with only a few word changes, and sent it to Washington with the attorney general’s signature. “The timing of the letter is great, given our meeting this Friday with both E.P.A. and the White House.”

Mr. Whitsitt then added, “Please pass along Devon’s thanks to Attorney General Pruitt.”

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.

Attorneys general in at least a dozen states are working with energy companies and other corporate interests, which in turn are providing them with record amounts of money for their political campaigns, including at least $16 million this year.

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/politics/energy-firms-in-secretive-alliance-with-attorneys-general.html?hp

State governments are sooo much cheaper to buy and influence than the federal one. Good and bad that.

[RandomGuy]

Federal regulators were grossly overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by energy companies drilling new natural gas wells in his state.



Is this true?


Abstract: 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.

http://endocrinedisruption.org/chemicals-in-natural-gas-operations/air-pollution


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.

[Yonivore]

Oklahoma attorney general denies 'secretive alliance' (http://newsok.com/article/5374189)


“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.”

Okay, let's start with the NYTimes hyperbolic first paragraph which, I admit, I accepted on its face.


"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."

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).


"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,..."
Not exactly blunt or accusatory.

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.

[boutons_deux]

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.

[ElNono]

"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,..."


Not exactly blunt or accusatory.

ac·cu·sa·to·ry
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?

[ElNono]

actually, I'm sure you do have a beef with the NYTimes aka MSM... never mind...

[Yonivore]

ac·cu·sa·to·ry
əˈkyo͞ozəˌtôrē/
adjective
adjective: accusatory

indicating or suggesting that one believes a person has done something wrong.
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.


don't get the beef with the NYTimes though... I mean, is there anything on the story that you know it's factually incorrect?
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.

[ElNono]

If you say so...

[Yonivore]

If you say so...

I do.

[ElNono]

okay

[ElNono]

related:

Leaked Emails Reveal MPAA Plans To Pay Elected Officials To Attack Google

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141212/12142629419/leaked-emails-reveal-mpaa-plans-to-pay-elected-officials-to-attack-google.shtml

[ElNono]

related, blue team this time:

Lawyers Create Big Paydays by Coaxing Attorneys General to Sue

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/lawyers-create-big-paydays-by-coaxing-attorneys-general-to-sue-.html

[ElNono]

related:

Sued by Google, a State Attorney General Retreats

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/technology/google-attorney-general-jim-hood-lawsuit.html

[Winehole23]

The Mississippi AG calls time out. Hilarious.

Did his arms get tired carrying water for the MPAA, or is it just an act?

[ElNono]

Google's full complaint:

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2746012/Google_v._Jim_Hood_-_Mem_of_Law_ISO_Motion_for_TRO_and_PI_-_filed.0.pdf

[ElNono]

related, apparent fallout from the article series:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/us/bipartisan-effort-to-restrict-lobbyists-influence-of-attorneys-general.html

[boutons_deux]

related, apparent fallout from the article series:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/us/bipartisan-effort-to-restrict-lobbyists-influence-of-attorneys-general.html

All elected officials, including judges, are for sale, and, very probably more often than not, bought and sold.


Public Has Dark Opinion Of ‘Dark Money’ In Elections

As dark-money spending reached what appeared to be record levels this fall, and with little sign of abating, polls showed staggeringly high numbers of Americans deeply troubled by the practice.

A recent bipartisan poll found that 80 percent of voters have a problem with what they see as “political operatives, wealthy donors and organizations abusing and taking advantage” of unclear IRS rules governing political activities of nonprofit organizations.

That worry stretched across party lines: 88 percent of Democrats, 84 percent of independents and 72 percent of Republicans in the poll were concerned about the consequences of unclear IRS rules for campaign spending.

The survey of 800 likely voters was conducted in late July for Public Citizen by Democratic polling firm Lake Research Partners and its Republican counterparts at Chesapeake Beach Consulting.

“We were surprised by how robust the reaction was,”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/public-dark-opinion-dark-money-elections/

.... as if elected officials GAF about public opinion.

The Congressional millionaires just voted themselves more $Bs, with the 11th-hour cromnibus bill increasing limit by 10x per donor.

[ElNono]

^ keep your junk somewhere else

[boutons_deux]

^ keep your junk somewhere else

GFY

[TeyshaBlue]

^ keep your junk somewhere else

Good luck with that.

smh

[boutons_deux]

related:

Sued by Google, a State Attorney General Retreats

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/technology/google-attorney-general-jim-hood-lawsuit.html

^ keep your junk somewhere else

[TeyshaBlue]

GFY