Inside Climate News icn

---

neglected see yahoo mail updates

see eco-cide

LEVERAGE punches above its wt, esp w/ investigative reporting defunded

w/ LAT --> Exxon Knew AG team, possible RICO

EXXON KNEW MAIN:

frontline:  https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/frontline-video

origin Ellsberg:  https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10112015/how-we-got-exxon-mobil-climate-change-science-story-subpoena-investigation

...David had been inspired at a journalism conference in the fall of 2014. There, he met Daniel Ellsberg, who spoke to him over dinner, and the next day to a roomful of journalists. Ellsberg emphasized the need to look for whistleblowers on various issues, including national security and climate denial efforts by energy companies.

David had also come across a speech by former BP chief executive, Lord Browne, in which he spoke of the warnings company scientists had sounded about climate change, and how their arguments convinced him that it was wrong to side with climate denial. David re-read Harvard Business School studies of BP breaking ranks with the rest of the industry by voicing its acceptance of climate science. He felt the territory was primed for exploration.

By the end of his pitch, David was beaming, ready for us to share in his excitement.

The project idea landed with a thud. The rest of us looked at each other in mild dismay. The oil industry was a sprawling haystack. How could we find these needles? In the end, there might be nothing to find....

:{:{===}:

---

RANDOM GMAIL 1 26

It landed as one fell swoop after a year of relentless cuts to U.S. climate programs, personnel and policy.

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday he would withdraw the United States from more than 60 international organizations and treaties, including the framework agreement for addressing climate change that a Republican administration helped to craft 33 years ago.

The moves, which face certain legal challenges and will take at least a year to execute in any case, go far beyond the nation’s exit from the Paris Agreement, which Trump announced at the start of his second term. They would mean that the U.S., the largest historic contributor to the world’s greenhouse gas overload, would be the only nation with no role in international negotiations to reduce pollution or aid poor nations that are bearing the brunt of climate impacts. The action invites a legal reckoning over Constitutional questions, such as whether a president can unilaterally abandon a treaty that has been Senate-ratified, as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was.

Trump is even seeking to remove the United States from the process of assessing climate science, although it is not clear that he has any power to block the 50 U.S. scientists from non-governmental institutions who are currently serving on the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In effect, the clearest impact of an exit from the IPCC would be giving up any leverage the United States has over the shape of the key findings of the panel, known as the Summary for Policymakers.

Climate action advocates pledged that state and local governments across the United States will remain committed to reducing greenhouse gas pollution. But the Trump administration also is engaged in a legal strategy to stop that from happening, this week filing suit against two California cities that have adopted ordinances to restrict natural gas infrastructure and appliances in new construction.

More of our coverage of the biggest story on the planet:

As President Trump met with U.S. oil executives on Friday, Exxon CEO Darren Woods called Venezuela “uninvestable” at present and others expressed caution in response to the president’s overtures to pour billions of dollars into the country.

The latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans, like previous editions, ignores the climate impacts of livestock and could make them worse, environmental groups worry.

The EPA budget for 2026 rejects extreme cuts proposed by Republican representatives and the Trump administration. But advocates warn that significant cuts still jeopardize the agency’s ability to protect Americans’ health.

Outcry Builds Over Trump’s Withdrawal From International, Climate Treaties

BY MARIANNE LAVELLE

Environmental advocates have blasted the administration’s unprecedented retreat as unwise—and possibly illegal.

As Trump Eyes Greenland, What Could That Mean for Island’s Mineral Wealth and Environment?

BY NICHOLAS KUSNETZ

The Danish territory holds significant stores of oil, gas and minerals. But regulations and the extreme environment have kept the vast majority in the ground.

Oil Industry Will Eye Venezuela Warily, Experts Say

BY MARIANNE LAVELLE, GEORGINA GUSTIN

Given Venezuela’s murky political future, few analysts expect a rush to invest the billions needed to pump more oil from the world’s largest reserves.

In Ecuador’s Battle of Toad vs. Road, Toad Wins

BY KATIE SURMA

A court invoked Ecuador’s rights of nature laws in halting a highway project to protect the Jambato harlequin toad, requiring the government to prove construction won’t drive the species to extinction.

Ten Million Corals Are in the Path of a Federal Dredging Project in Florida

BY TERESA TOMASSONI

Scientists warn that a proposed expansion of Port Everglades could cause unprecedented damage to corals in the U.S., including some of the only remaining endangered staghorn corals that survived a record-breaking heat wave.

Burning Plastic Waste for Household Fuel Endangers Millions

BY LIZA GROSS

People in low-income urban communities in the Global South without access to reliable energy sources are burning the toxic plastic waste inundating their communities to cook and heat their homes.

Ocean Warming Breaks Record for Ninth Straight Year

BY JOHNNY STURGEON

Scientists warn the ocean’s accumulation of energy is fueling extreme weather patterns and destabilizing marine ecosystems.

To Save An Endangered Prairie Fish, Dried-up Iowa Wetlands Get New Life

BY ANIKA JANE BEAMER

Efforts to save the Topeka shiner have restored hundreds of oxbow lakes across Iowa. Now, those wetlands are helping to improve the state’s water quality.

More Children Are Powering Their Own Wheels to School as Part of ‘Bike Buses’

BY TINA DEINES

School kids who ride in packs led by adults to school improve both their health and their grades, reduce traffic and pollution around schools and help cut climate-warming emissions.

How Trump Derailed a NOAA Pioneer’s Move From Climate Impacts to Solutions

BY MARIANNE LAVELLE

Libby Jewett founded the U.S. ocean acidification program and had begun work on offshore wind energy. But she joined the past year’s historic exodus from the agency, the impacts of which are still not clear.

The Real Pain of Climate Change Is Easy to Feel, but Increasingly Difficult to Study

BY CHAD SMALL

Many chronic pain patients cite the weather as a driver of their suffering, and climate change is making the torment more likely and harder to deal with. But research on the relationship is uncertain, and federal cuts could hold it back.

---

---}:

ICN 6 25

A group of 22 young people from across the country accuse the Trump administration in a new federal lawsuit of violating their constitutional rights with a coordinated set of executive orders that prioritize the expansion of fossil fuels and threaten to further destabilize the climate.

The complaint, filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court in Montana, challenges three executive orders: “Unleashing American Energy,” “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” and “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry.” The lawsuit argues that with the orders, the Trump administration knowingly is advancing an agenda that will increase greenhouse gas pollution that already is stressing the global climate to a dangerous extent.

The litigation argues the situation infringes on the young people’s constitutional rights to life and liberty, as well as falling afoul of other laws approved by Congress that protect public health and the environment. The plaintiffs want the court to declare the executive orders unconstitutional, block their implementation and reaffirm the legal limits on presidential power.

“From day one of the current administration, President Trump has issued directives to increase fossil fuel use and production and block an energy transition to wind, solar, battery storage, energy efficiency, and electric vehicles (“EVs”),” the lawsuit states. “President Trump’s EOs falsely claim an energy emergency, while the true emergency is that fossil fuel pollution is destroying the foundation of Plaintiffs’ lives.”

The complaint was filed on behalf of young people from Montana to Florida, ranging in age from 7 to 25, who have experienced wildfires, floods, hurricanes and extreme heat. Some have been displaced from their homes.

Others have endured health harms, such as a 7-year-old boy, identified by the initials J.K. in the lawsuit because he is a minor, who suffers from frequent respiratory infections. The infections are exacerbated by wildfire smoke and have landed him in the hospital. Greenhouse gas emissions, including those associated with fossil fuels, are heating the global climate, shifting weather patterns and leading to more extreme events such as wildfires and hurricanes.

Many of the plaintiffs are pursuing college degrees and careers in environmental science, and their research and professional goals have been disrupted as the Trump administration has eliminated jobs and funding for clean energy, climate research and decarbonization. Ula Jones, 18, was told by professors that some classes she planned to take may be eliminated. A 17-year-old who is identified by the initials J.M. in the litigation had helped her school secure a $400,000 grant from the Environmental Protection Agency for two electric buses, but the school never received the funding.

Some plaintiffs also have experienced mental anguish over the uncertainty climate change has cast on their futures. Among them is Olivia Vesovich, 21, who lives in Missoula, Montana.

“There are days when Olivia feels paralyzed by the devastation wrought by climate change to her state and community,” the lawsuit states. “Olivia’s climate anxiety is like an elephant sitting on her chest; it feels like a crushing weight, making it hard for her to breathe.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Our Children’s Trust, the Oregon-based advocacy group that previously brought the closely watched case Juliana v. United States, which sought to hold the federal government accountable for an energy system based on fossil fuels. That lawsuit claimed the government knew since 1965 that burning fossil fuels would lead to dangerous climate change.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined this spring to hear the case, ending the 10-year legal effort. But Our Children’s Trust said the legal framework established by Juliana inspired more than 60 youth-led lawsuits worldwide. In 2023 the group celebrated a groundbreaking victory in Montana, the first time a court in the U.S. declared that a government had a constitutional responsibility to protect people from climate change. The next year the group reached a settlement in Hawaii that included a plan to decarbonize the state’s transportation system.

Our Children’s Trust filed the latest litigation over the Trump administration’s executive orders in partnership with the Gregory Law Group, McGarvey Law and Public Justice.

In addition to President Donald Trump, the lawsuit names as defendants multiple administration leaders and departments, including the EPA, Department of Transportation, National Science Foundation and the Department of Health and Human Services.

“The American people are more concerned with the future generations’ economic and national security, which is why they elected President Trump in a landslide victory to restore America’s energy dominance,” said Taylor Rogers, White House assistant press secretary, in a statement provided to Inside Climate News. “Future generations should not have to foot the bill of the lefts’ radical climate agenda.”

A recent report by risk management experts warned that climate change could cut the worldwide gross domestic product in half between 2070 and 2090. And last year, the U.S. was hit by 27 billion-dollar disasters.

Eva Lighthiser, a 19-year-old recent high school graduate living in Livingston, Montana, is one of the plaintiffs. Flooding destroyed roads and bridges near where she lived, forcing her family to relocate to a different town. Wildfire smoke leaves her short of breath and causes other symptoms such as headaches. She plans to study environmental science in college and worries about whether the Trump administration may limit her access to climate science and data.

“It’s incredibly important to stay involved in this,” she said. “These are our futures that we’re inheriting. It’s vitally important that we do our best to preserve those.”

---

eco-cide series

https://insideclimatenews.org/project/the-fifth-crime/

---

2 25

Activists across the United States say they’re preparing to take the federal government to court after President Donald Trump unveiled a series of executive orders that seek to undo much of his predecessor’s climate and environmental justice legacy.

The executive orders, which Trump signed just hours after his second term began, target some of President Joe Biden’s key accomplishments, including the Justice40 Initiative. That program, which many advocates hailed as a major breakthrough for the environmental justice movement, directed federal agencies to deliver at least 40 percent of the “overall benefits” of their environmental and energy spending to “disadvantaged communities that have been historically marginalized and overburdened by pollution and underinvestment.”

Many government websites put up during Biden’s term, including the official Justice40 page and the White House environmental justice page, have been removed since Trump took office.

Other Biden initiatives that the Trump administration moved to reverse include:

Two executive orders that directed federal agencies to explicitly take environmental justice into account when spending funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or the Inflation Reduction Act;

One executive order that set a national goal to dramatically increase the sales of electric vehicles in the U.S. by 2030;

And one executive order that established the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, as well as offered federal assistance to struggling coal communities as the country transitions to cleaner energy sources.

More of our coverage of the biggest story on the planet:

A White House memorandum ordered a halt to federal assistance and a review to align spending with Donald Trump’s priorities. The order throws doubt into a wide range of programs that help protect Americans from disasters, provide access to clean drinking water and affordable energy and help protect ecosystems, among many other issues.

The new head of the U.S. Department of Transportation issued sweeping memos this week, directing the department to “identify and eliminate” nearly all initiatives relating to climate change, racial equity, gender identity, DEI or environmental justice implemented during the Biden administration.

Environmental advocates in North Carolina are angry after 10 utilities and power companies, including Duke Energy, sent a letter to the newly confirmed EPA administrator asking to weaken environmental regulations over coal ash and natural gas.

As Trump Targets Biden’s Environmental Justice Initiatives, Activists Gear Up for Legal Fights

BY KRISTOFFER TIGUE, KEERTI GOPAL, MARIANNE LAVELLE

Those who have worked to combat climate change for years believe they are well-prepared to challenge executive orders that would leave vulnerable communities more exposed to pollution.

Reset or Purge? Trump EPA Dismisses Agency Science Advisers

BY MARIANNE LAVELLE

Critics fear the unusual clean sweep of panels is meant to ease the planned rollback of climate and environmental policy.

RFK Jr. Confirmation Hearing Highlighted His Inconsistency But Overlooked Climate and Environment

BY KEERTI GOPAL

If Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination is approved, he would oversee health at a time when environmental impacts loom large.

Global Warming Set the Stage for Los Angeles Fires

BY BOB BERWYN

A new attribution analysis found that climate heating caused by burning fossil fuels significantly increased the likelihood of extreme fire conditions.

Amid Paused Solar Funding, EPA Floats Workforce Reductions

BY JAKE BOLSTER

Solar for All, its funding paused by a Trump executive order, would be just one of the programs to lose support if the agency goes through with mass-firings.

Moss Landing Battery Fire Leads to Health Fears, Evidence of Contamination and Concerns About Overreaction

BY DAN GEARINO, KILEY PRICE

Residents describe experiences of sore throats and other symptoms. The energy storage industry insists that this incident is an extreme outlier.

‘Drill Baby Drill’: Texas City Approves New Site for Fracking Near Daycare and Schools

BY DYLAN BADDOUR

It was the first time in 12 years that Arlington opened new land for fracking. TotalEnergies will drill 10 new gas wells that are two-tenths of a mile from a daycare center amid an uptick in Barnett Shale activity.

Mid-Atlantic States, PJM Agree to Price Cap for Capacity Auction, Temporarily Easing Energy Affordability Concerns

BY AMAN AZHAR

The agreement between the region’s grid operator, PJM Interconnection, and Pennsylvania should shield ratepayers from price shocks.

Watchdog Groups Anticipate ‘an All-Out War on Science and Scientists’ by the Trump Administration

BY BOB BERWYN

Some federal websites, including the White House’s, have already deleted climate information, including reports on resilience and adaptation vital to U.S. communities.

As MIT Aims to Decarbonize, Competing Ideas Focus on Thermal Energy Systems

BY PHIL McKENNA

The MIT Alumni/Student Decarbonization Team will host a forum on a plan that members say could save the university hundreds of millions of dollars. MIT isn’t so sure.

Why Is ReBuild NC Involved in Disaster Management in Western North Carolina?

BY LISA SORG

The state's new governor said the troubled agency, which fumbled hurricane relief in the east, wouldn't go to devastated mountain areas after Hurricane Helene. But ReBuild NC has done just that.

Environmental Justice Advocates in New York City Fault Statewide Plan for Renewable Energy Development

BY LAUREN DALBAN

The New York Power Authority has proposed 40 new renewable energy projects, but only one is in New York City. Advocates say that could delay the closure of natural gas “peaker plants.”

📈 Trending

Maryland’s Renewable Energy Program: More Smoke and Mirrors Than Wind and Solar, New Report Alleges

BY AMAN AZHAR

Hailed as a transformative initiative, the program has failed to deliver its promise of transitioning Maryland to clean, fossil-free electricity, the report’s authors write.

---

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28022022/ipcc-report-russia-ukraine-adaptation-fossil-fuels/

delay is death

random 11 22

Four States Just Got a ‘Trifecta’ of Democratic Control, Paving the Way for Climate and Clean Energy Legislation

BY DAN GEARINO, AMAN AZHAR & AYDALI CAMPA

Democrats in Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Minnesota now run state government—and environmental organizations see the opportunity for more ambitious and equitable policies.

California Climate Measure Fails After ‘Green’ Governor Opposed It in a Campaign Supporters Called ‘Misleading’

BY LIZA GROSS

Proposition 30 would have taxed the state’s wealthiest residents to subsidize EVs, charging infrastructure and wildfire protection. But public support flagged after Gov. Newsom became the face of the opposition.

The Nation’s Youngest Voters Put Their Stamp on the Midterms, with Climate Change Top of Mind

BY JAMES BRUGGERS, DELANEY DRYFOOS & DARREONNA DAVIS

Gen Z voters overwhelmingly supported Democrats in key Senate races in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona and New Hampshire, according to a research center at Tufts University.

Parties at COP27 Add Loss and Damage to the Agenda, But Won’t Discuss Which Countries Are Responsible or Who Should Pay

BY ZOHA TUNIO

After enduring unprecedented climate disasters, Pakistan pushed talks about the costs of climate change onto the agenda. The U.N. secretary general calls the discussions a “moral imperative.”

Lawyers Press International Court to Investigate a ‘Network’ Committing Crimes Against Humanity in Brazil’s Amazon

BY KATIE SURMA

A court filing details an unrelenting barrage of threats, torture and murders intended to drive rural people from the rainforest and speed the extraction of natural resources. In a novel strategy, lawyers argue that the crimes are linked to a coordinated web of politicians, business officials and gangs.

biggest climate invest org in US world/ EIB

fake news vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6wiZrjJocU&feature=youtu.be

==

EXXON KNEW MAIN:

https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

timeline infographic:  https://insideclimatenews.org/content/long-tale-exxon-and-climate-change

1  https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago

Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.

BY NEELA BANERJEE, LISA SONG AND DAVID HASEMYER

SEP 16, 2015

2

Exxon Believed Deep Dive Into Climate Research Would Protect Its Business

Outfitting its biggest supertanker to measure the ocean's absorption of carbon dioxide was a crown jewel in Exxon's research program.

NEELA BANERJEE, LISA SONG, DAVID HASEMYER

SEP 17, 2015

3

Exxon Confirmed Global Warming Consensus in 1982 with In-House Climate Models

The company chairman would later mock climate models as unreliable while he campaigned to stop global action to reduce fossil fuel emissions.

LISA SONG, NEELA BANERJEE, DAVID HASEMYER

SEP 22, 2015

4

Exxon's Business Ambition Collided with Climate Change Under a Distant Sea

Throughout the 1980s, the company struggled to solve the carbon problem of one of the biggest gas fields in the world out of concern for climate impacts.

BY NEELA BANERJEE & LISA SONG

OCT 8, 2015

5

Highlighting the Allure of Synfuels, Exxon Played Down the Climate Risks

In the 1980s, Exxon lobbied to replace scarce oil with synthetic fossil fuels, but it glossed over the high carbon footprint associated with synfuels.

BY JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR.

OCT 8, 2015

6 (got it)

Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty

Collaborating with the Bush-Cheney White House, Exxon turned ordinary scientific uncertainties into weapons of mass confusion.

BY DAVID HASEMYER AND JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR.

OCT 22, 2015

7

Exxon Made Deep Cuts in Climate Research Budget in the 1980s

The cuts ushered in a five-year hiatus in peer-reviewed publication by its scientists and the era when the company first embraced disinformation.

BY JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR.

NOV 25, 2015

8

More Exxon Documents Show How Much It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago

Documents reveal Exxon's early CO2 position, its global warming forecast from the 1980s, and its involvement with the issue at the highest echelons.

BY NEELA BANERJEE

DEC 1, 2015

9

Exxon's Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too

Members of an American Petroleum Institute task force on CO2 included scientists from nearly every major oil company, including Exxon, Texaco and Shell.

BY NEELA BANERJEE

DEC 22, 2015

==

SECRET SCIENCE:  https://insideclimatenews.org/tags/secret-science

icn 920

five States Have Filed Climate Change Lawsuits, Seeking Damages From Big Oil and Gas - InsideClimate News

==

july 2014

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29072014/insideclimate-news-responds-steve-everley-energy-depth/

last week an oil and gas industry public relations front group called Energy in Depth published a lengthy criticism of InsideClimate News and our partner for the past year, the Center for Public Integrity, of stories we’ve been publishing together about toxic air emissions from unconventional gas and oil production in Texas.

We believe we’ve aroused the group’s displeasure because our work shines an unwelcome spotlight on these toxic air emissions and the manner in which they are released, with little regulation or regard for neighboring homes and communities. As our stories point out, regulators in Texas claim that the emissions are within safe levels, even though they don’t have enough data to make that assertion. Our investigations have also shown that people who believe they have been sickened by the nearby emissions are left to fend for themselves.

Energy in Depth did not dispute the evidence we presented. Instead, it published a litany of allegations charging journalistic malfeasance. Not one of the allegations touched on the substance of our reporting, which is based on interviews with more than 30 scientists and technical experts, including some who work for the industry.

Had we gotten anything wrong? No.

Did we refuse to correct any mistakes? No.

Did we in any way falsify the words or images of Steve Everley of Energy in Depth, the author of the criticisms? No.

In fact, Mr. Everley was given full and fair opportunity to express his industry’s point of view, both in the text of our articles (read them here) and in the video documentary we co-produced with The Weather Channel (watch it here).

It is not unusual for powerful industries to go on the attack to undermine unfavorable news reports. Even though Mr. Everley speaks as if he is protecting the public from misrepresentations by media with an agenda, in fact he is protecting the bottom line of the oil and gas industry, which pays his salary.

In a letter to his colleagues in 2009, the president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America said Energy in Depth was founded in order “to combat new environmental regulations, especially with regard to hydraulic fracturing. And we’re seeing some outstanding results.” The announcement lists the original funders—the Independent Petroleum Association of America, BP, Anadarko, Marathon, EnCana, Chevron, Talisman, Shell, American Petroleum Institute, Halliburton, Schlumberger, the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, El Paso Corporation, XTO Energy, and Occidental Petroleum—and asks other IPAA members for support because “the battle is just beginning.”

Now, five years later, Energy in Depth has gone to great lengths to assert that InsideClimate News is part of what Mr. Everley calls an “anti-fracking industry.”He asserts that ICN’s reporters—like anyone else who might show concern for the air, the water, the Earth or its climate—are all part of the same secret conspiracy, are in it for the money, and get that money from the same nefarious places.

But no such thing as an “anti-fracking industry” exists, and Everley provides no evidence that would pass muster in an honest newsroom that it does. Instead, he manufactures an imaginary public enemy, a rival “industry,” no less, that is out to do harm.

Changing the subject through the production of distractions is a kind of sleight of hand that is the specialty of well-trained public relations professionals, who in America now outnumber journalists four to one. Many are paid to protect their clients from transparent public accounting with tricks like this one.

Still, two of Mr. Everley’s accusations deserve response, because they question our ethics and our integrity, and it is bad practice to leave such charges unanswered in the digital arena.

• Our reporters do not conceal their identities, nor do they employ other questionable reporting techniques, and no credible evidence exists to the contrary.

• InsideClimate News does not “share” any funding with special interests, and there is no evidence that we do.

We apply for our own funding from a wide variety of sources. Our donors, listed on our website, play absolutely no role in our editorial decisions.

This is the way non-profit journalism works, not just at InsideClimate News but all across the country. The sector has grown in recent years as a result of the financial disruptions afflicting traditional journalism. Support for environmental reporting, on life-support at most newspapers and broadcast outlets, is an especially important contribution philanthropy is making to the nation’s civic health.

The best way for readers to judge our journalistic integrity and independence is to read the work we produce and examine it themselves. And the best place to start would be this page. Here readers will find the first stories in the groundbreaking investigation we’re conducting in collaboration with the Center for Public Integrity and The Weather Channel on the dangers posed by toxic air emissions from unconventional oil and gas production.

1119

ICN reader,

Spring floods, hot summers and warmer winters have been wake-up calls for many of us, revealing what the future will look like if global warming continues at a high rate.

This is true across the Midwest, where cities are trying to adapt to the increasing impacts of climate change. These efforts are the focus of a new project from InsideClimate News –&... Unfamiliar Ground: Bracing for Climate Impacts in the American Midwest.

Today ICN and newsrooms across the Midwest published this joint project exploring what communities are doing to prepare for what’s ahead. The stories come from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, and Minnesota, states where everything from ice fishing to growing seasons are at risk....Click here to read the series....

519 eg flooding, pipleines

, InsideClimate News and 14 Midwest newsrooms published an innovative joint project on climate change challenges and solutionsacross the region. Here's what we found.

==

update/prequel: smog  API

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05062016/oil-industry-clean-air-fight-smog-los-angeles-dress-rehearsal-climate-change-denial-exxon

==

partner with frontline on exxon early research, expanded to all co's --> RICO?

royal dutch shell

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/24/inside_exxons_great_climate_cover_up

InsideClimate News. Winner of the 2013Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting; one of the biggest environmental newsrooms in the country; non-profit, non partisan and aiming to come to full scale. (Colbert)

Arkansas BP Mayflower pipeline: Inside Climate News, which won a Pulitzer for its stories on lax oversight of pipelines, is a scrappy little outfit that is making happen just what we wanted in the era when traditional media/newspapers/investigative reporting is folding; but after the Mayflower Arkansas  BP oil spill one of its reporters, Lisa Song was trying to interview US EPA and Dept of Transportation officials, and was told they were in the command center. She tried repeatedly to get their names and contact info. She was initially turned away at the gate, but on her second try was waved through by another (pvt security?) guard. Inside the warehouse serving as the command center she went to a table with a sign “Public Affairs” and got the name of EPA spokesperson, and was in the process of getting it for DOT when Exxon spokesperson told her to leave; a second person repeated the request, adding she'd be arrested for criminal trespass if she did not comply. Another ICN reporter/publisher David Sassoon, revealed Kochs' involvement with tar sands; Koch tried to get Reuters to stop being an ICN partner, and ran ads on Google and Facebook calling him a liar. “agenda-driven, dishonest journalism” [did they say what was incorrect?].

==

Koch Industries has, at times, a fractious relationship with the media. The company says much of the reporting about Charles and David Koch and their privately-held company is inaccurate or unfair. That sense of grievance led to the creation of :{KochFacts.com:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: [14], a website where Koch Industries posts requests for corrections, company statements, testy correspondence between Koch officials and reporters, and favorable news and commentary.

One journalist with whom Koch Industries has clashed is David Sassoon, the publisher of **:{InsideClimate News:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:** [15], a nonprofit website devoted to environmental journalism. InsideClimate News recently :{won a Pulitzer Prize:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: [16] for its reporting on the dodgy oversight of US oil pipelines. After InsideClimate News reported on Koch Industries' ties to the Canadian tar sands business, Koch Industries :{blasted:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: [17] the site's "agenda-driven, dishonest journalism" and :{***pressured Reuters***:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: [18], the global news service, to reconsider its decision to publish InsideClimate News' stories. (Reuters stood by Sassoon and his small team of reporters.)

I asked Sassoon, fresh off his Pulitzer win, what he thought of the news of Koch Industries potentially bidding on the Tribune company newspapers. "We reported on the Kochs' involvement in the tar sands, and they played hardball to try to shut us up," he wrote in an email. "They pressured Reuters to drop us as a content partner, and ran ads on Google and Facebook calling me liar...What we've experienced of them first-hand makes me think they would not be trustworthy stewards of the honorable traditions of journalism."

The Tiny News Startup That Crashed the Pulitzer Prizes

On the 12th floor of a none-too-modern office building in downtown Brooklyn are the offices of the law firm Kornblau & Kornblau. Tucked away deep in this warren of dim rooms is the brain center of InsideClimate News, the newest member of the elite fraternity of Pulitzer Prize winners.

How small an operation is InsideClimate News? Well, when I visited publisher and founder David Sassoon there Tuesday afternoon, I doubled the occupancy rate. The five-year-old nonprofit has seven employees total, but the other six are scattered across the Western Hemisphere, from Tel Aviv to San Diego. “If we get somebody in Hawaii or Australia or Japan, we’ll have the globe covered,” Sassoon says.

In winningthe Pulitzer for national reporting for a series on the poor regulation of oil pipelines, ICN beat out the Boston Globe and the Washington Post, two newspapers with around 900 journalists between them — not to mention all the news organizations that didn’t make it to the finalists’ circle. How could a crew of seven beat behemoths that live for Pulitzer day?

“When you do have huge operations, you’re being pulled in lots of directions,” says Sassoon. “We’re covering one thing. We’ve been doing this 24/7 for five years.”

A small budget is only a handicap if you’re trying to attack the problem in the same way as news organizations with big budgets, he says:

I don’t know why it has to be that expensive. We probably spent 10% of what a big, well-endowed newsroom would spend, and that’s in terms of salaries and everything. We didn’t do a lot of traveling. We didn’t have the money, so we didn’t think about it. We were just figuring out out how do we get the story. I think it’s possible to do a lot of journalism on low budgets without necessarily feeling like you can’t do the job you want to do. Maybe a lot of the newsrooms can do it more efficiently than they think they can. There are plenty of individuals, newsrooms, little ones here and there, that can do this kind of work.

That said, ICN wants to be a slightly larger news organization. “We think to do our job fully, we need to be 20 to 25 people,” says Sassoon. “As we work out our plan, I want to have a newsroom in New York. We need a hub.”

Joining the Pulitzer club ought to help with that, indirectly. While the $10,000 in prize money will be shared among the reporters who worked on the winning series, the award could be worth many times that amount as a calling card for fundraising and sponsorship sales.

“I think it’s a game changer. I think the Pulitzer Committee probably knew that,” says Sassson. “We earned the award. It’s great work we did. But I think they would understand how validation from them, the top honor in journalism, would make a big difference to us as a tiny startup.”

This article is available online at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/04/16/the-tiny-news-startup-that-crashed-the-pulitzer-prizes/**

nsideClimate reporter Elizabeth McGowan told the *Wall Street Journal*, ”We made the commitment to this story because we thought this story mattered.”

According to the Journal, the nonprofit InsideClimate News got around 200,000 pageviews last month. That means it is relatively tiny when it comes to news, and much smaller than past online Pulitzer winners like Huffington Post and ProPublica. (Interestingly, InsideClimate’s executive editor, Susan White, used to work for ProPublica, where she edited the piece on a New Orleans hospital after Katrina that won the first Pulitzer for that organization.)

In contrast, when I worked at The Daily Green a few years ago, we averaged 1 million unique visitors and 10 million pageviews a month, with a staff of three. Yet the business side of things was still tough.

Like Yale 360, Grist, or E Magazine, InsideClimate News doesn’t have to turn a profit, and can focus on hardhitting environmental reporting. But bills must still be paid, and InsideClimate receives support from funders such as  the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Marisla Foundation, and the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, according to the Journal. However, raising such money for environmental journalism has been increasingly difficult over the past few years, insiders say.

In general, it has been rough for environmental reporters, as newspapers have slashed jobs and several dedicated outlets like the Washington Post‘s Sprig, Blue Egg, Plenty, Blue,and others have turned out the lights. The New York Times closed their environmental desk earlier this year, and popular sites Treehugger and MNN have merged, shedding jobs in the process.

“We were very sad when the NYT closed its environment desk,” Song told us.

Does InsideClimate News’ win signal a fresh approach to environmental journalism? Perhaps, although depending on grants and gifts can be a perilous business that is hard to sustain in a long haul.

In honor of their win, we look at some of the surprising stories InsideClimate News has uncovered recently.

**1. The Dilbit Disaster**

The story that won the Pulitzer, the team took a hard look at the 2010 oil spill in Michigan, as well as the larger issue of the safety of dilbit.

2. Exxon Allegedly Threatens an InsideClimate Reporter With Arrest

Hazards on the trail of a hot environmental story, in this case the recent oil spill in Arkansas.

3. Oil Sands Mining Uses Up Almost as Much Energy as It Produces

“Thanks to high global oil prices, industry can afford the large amount of energy needed to extract the oil and turn it into a usable fuel,” wrote Rachel Nuwer.

4. 2012 Was a Big Year for America’s Clean Energy Economy, Despite Solyndra

Good news for those frustrated by the partisan attacks.

5. So Far So Good for Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out, Despite Dire Predictions

Part of a series of detailed reports from Europe.

InsideClimate News Reporter Threatened With Arrest at Ark. Oil Spill Site

By Susan White, InsideClimate News [1]

Apr 5, 2013

ExxonMobil said Lisa Song would be charged with criminal trespass if she didn’t leave the command center where federal authorities are working.

By Susan White

InsideClimate News reporter Lisa Song [3] was threatened with arrest on Wednesday after she entered the command center for the cleanup operation in Mayflower, Ark., where a major oil pipeline spill occurred on Friday.

Song went to the command center in hopes of reaching representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation. She had been told they were working out of the command center, but had been unable to get their names or contact information despite multiple requests to the agencies.

Thousands of barrels of oil from Alberta's tar sands region [4]—similar to the diluted bitumen that would flow through the controversial Keystone XL project—spilled into a residential neighborhood from a pipeline owned by ExxonMobil, forcing the evacuation of 22 homes. Those families are now being housed in hotels [5] at Exxon's expense. 

Song had tried to enter the command compound on Tuesday, but was turned away by a security guard. On Wednesday, however, a different guard was on duty and he waved her through the gate. Inside, a second person directed her to the warehouse that houses the command center.

Inside the building, Song went to a table with a sign that said "public affairs," where she was given the name and contact information for Austin Vela, the EPA spokesman at the site. Before she could get the name of a DOT representative, however, Exxon spokeswoman Kim Jordan spotted Song and told her to leave. A second person arrived and said, "You've been asked by security to leave. If you don't you'll be arrested for criminal trespass."

Song left the compound.

Go to Our News Center for Full & Expert Coverage of the Exxon Oil Spill in Arkansas [6]

InsideClimate News lodged complaints with the EPA and with officials at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the division of the DOT that regulates interstate pipelines.

A PHMSA spokeswoman responded and said the agency has two investigators in Mayflower and no public information officer, and is not responsible for site access.

The EPA, which is the designated on-scene coordinator for the investigation in Mayflower, did not respond to questions about whether Song should have been evicted from the command center.

Timothy Smith [7], professor emeritus of journalism at Kent State University and founder of the Media Law Center for Ethics and Access [8], said that if the command center was on Exxon property and Song had refused to leave, the company could, indeed, have asked local law enforcement officials to arrest her.

But Smith said he couldn't understand why the "DOT and EPA should be hunkered down behind walls thrown up by a private company."

"This type of operating procedure is unusual. I can't figure out why it would be beneficial to either Exxon or DOT to control information about this event," Smith said.

"While the Arkansas spill is certainly embarrassing given the controversy about the Canadian pipeline, by denying access, they are making it worse."

Song reported on Tuesday that Exxon is controlling the flow of information about the spill [9]. The phone number of the command center goes to an ExxonMobil answering service in Texas, and for almost a week the official daily updates released by the command center contained only three logos: ExxonMobil, the city of Mayflower and Faulkner County, Ark.

Vela, the EPA spokesman, said the agency's logo was omitted by accident. It appeared on Thursday's update.

The area where the spill occurred is also off limits to the media. On Tuesday afternoon, a sheriff's deputy told Song and two college journalism students to leave when they tried to take pictures at a spot near the incident command site, where some of the oil was being removed. On Wednesday, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that the Federal Aviation Administration has set up a temporary no-fly zone over the spill area [10], and that "only relief aircraft under direction of Tom Suhrhoff" are allowed in the zone. A LinkedIn profile says Suhrhoff is an aviation advisor at ExxonMobil [11].

About 600 people at the site are working for Exxon and various contractors. The EPA has five employees on site.

The ExxonMobil pipeline that ruptured was carrying Wabasca Heavy crude, a type of bitumen mined in Canada's oil sands region [4]. Because bitumen is too thick to flow through pipelines, it is thinned with natural gas liquids and turned into dilbit, or diluted bitumen.

In 2010, Canadian dilbit spilled into Michigan's Kalamazoo River from a ruptured pipeline, and oil is still being found in sections of the riverbed today [12], almost three years later.  If the Keystone XL pipeline is approved, it will carry dilbit from Alberta, Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast. As it passes through Nebraska, the Keystone would cross one of the nation's largest and most important water sources, the Ogallala aquifer.

Song has been covering the Keystone project, the Michigan spill and pipeline safety issues since 2011. After she left the command center on Wednesday, the ExxonMobil spokeswoman sent her an email with the name and contact information for Bill Lowry, a DOT representative. And Vela, the EPA spokesman, called and said he would try to arrange a tour of the site.

On Thursday afternoon, Vela met Song and gave her a tour of the command center parking lot. He also allowed her to take photos at the edge of a nearby cleanup site. They were accompanied by an ExxonMobil spokesman.

Comment space is provided for respectful discourse. Please consult our comment policies [19] for more information. We welcome your participation in civil and constructive discussions.

Links:

[1] http://insideclimatenews.org/author/susan-white

[2] http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/exxonmobilemergencyresponselisasong2.jpg

[3] http://insideclimatenews.org/author/lisa-song

[4] http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130330/exxon-confirms-ruptured-pipeline-ark-carried-canadian-dilbit

[5] http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130404/exxon-oil-spill-leaves-arkansas-neighborhood-shock

[6] http://insideclimatenews.org/exxon-oil-spill-arkansas

[7] http://www.ksumlc.com/about/tim-smith/

[8] http://www.ksumlc.com/

[9] http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130402/oil-spill-cleanup-arkansas-exxon-running-show-not-federal-agencies?page=show

[10] http://m.arkansasonline.com/news/2013/apr/03/no-fly-zone-place-over-mayflower-oil-spill/?latest

[11] http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/04/03/exxon-s-skies-why-does-exxon-control-no-fly-zone-over-arkansas-tar-sands-spill

[12] http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130327/cleanup-2010-mich-dilbit-spill-aims-stop-spread-submerged-oil

[13] http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130402/oil-spill-cleanup-arkansas-exxon-running-show-not-federal-agencies

[14] http://insideclimatenews.org/topic/dilbit

[15] http://insideclimatenews.org/topic/exxon-dilbit-spill-2013

[16] http://insideclimatenews.org/topic/exxonmobil

[17] http://insideclimatenews.org/topics/tar-sandsoil-sands

[18] http://insideclimatenews.org/topic/dilbit-disaster

[19] http://insideclimatenews.org/about/comment-policies

[20] http://insideclimatenews.disqus.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Finsideclimatenews.org%2Fnews%2F20130405%2Finsideclimate-news-reporter-threatened-arrest-ark-oil-spill-site

The Kochs and Keystone XL

InsideClimate fails to make its case about brothers’ interest in the pipeline—but it should keep trying

By Curtis Brainard

Koch Industries, a giant oil and energy conglomerate, has InsideClimate News, a four-year-old online news startup, in its crosshairs.

In October, the company launched an online ad campaign via Google, Facebook, and its KochFacts.com website (which rebuts coverage it finds unsatisfactory) claiming that InsideClimate “misleads readers and asserts outright falsehoods” about Koch’s interest in the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would transport crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to Gulf Coast refineries in the US, and has drawn vigorous opposition from environmentalists. Koch’s ads feature a jaundiced image InsideClimate’s founder and publisher, David Sassoon, calling him the “activist/owner” of the site. Sassoon calls the ads “media intimidation.”

It is not the first time that Koch Industries—one of the largest private companies in the country—has targeted a news outlet. In recent months, the company has employed a nearly identical strategy to criticize reporting by Bloomberg News and the Center for Public Integrity. InsideClimate’s battle with the firm is more complicated than a hackneyed David-and-Goliath story, however, revealing both the strengths and weaknesses of a young news site trying to prove its mettle.

Round One

The saga began with an investigative article by Sassoon that InsideClimate News (then called SolveClimate News) published last February. Based on publicly available records, the site reported that “Koch Industries is already responsible for close to 25 percent of the oil sands crude that is imported into the United States, and is well-positioned to benefit from increasing Canadian oil imports.”

Koch Industries owns an Alberta-based subsidiary called Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, whose website says it is “among Canada’s largest crude oil purchasers, shippers, and exporters.” According to InsideClimate, it “supplies about 250,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day to a heavy oil refinery in Minnesota, also owned by the Koch brothers,” and “operates a crude oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta, the starting point of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.”

“Although the pipeline, if approved, would increase the supply of oil reaching the U.S., a 2009 market analysis conducted by TransCanada, builder of the pipeline, forecast higher prices,” InsideClimate reported. “The analysis, which TransCanada conducted as part of its Canadian permit application, projected that prices would increase about $3 per barrel as a result of the pipeline,” putting at least a $2 billion in Canadian oil producers’ pockets.

“Given its deep involvement in the Canadian petroleum industry, the Koch brothers’ operation stands to snare some of the windfall,” Sassoon concluded.

Reuters and other major outlets syndicated the article, which eventually caught the attention of Representative Henry Waxman. His staff contacted Koch Industries to ask about its role in the Keystone XL pipeline and Canadian tar sands. It did not receive satisfactory answers, however, so the California Democrat sent a letter to leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May urging them “to request documents from Koch Industries related to the company’s interest in Canadian tar sands and the extent to which it will benefit if the Keystone XL pipeline is constructed.”

In the letter, Waxman described his staff’s interaction with the company:

The Koch representatives said that the Keystone XL pipeline has “nothing to do with any of our businesses” and that Koch had “no financial interest” in the pipeline. They also stated that the company neither supports nor opposes the legislation we will be considering next week.

However, Koch’s representatives refused to answer questions about Koch’s activities or interests in the Canadian tar sands. They refused to confirm or deny reports that the company is developing tar sand projects. They also refused to say whether Koch Industries owns—through a wholly owned subsidiary—a terminal involved in the tar sands business.

There appears to be a significant discrepancy between the published reports that Koch Industries would be “big winners” if the pipeline is approved and the statement of the Koch representatives that the pipeline has “nothing to do” with Koch’s businesses. We do not presume that Koch’s representations are inaccurate. But we were dismayed by the company’s lack of candor in responding to staff’s questions and believe additional inquiry is warranted.

Five days later, InsideClimate News ran an article by Elizabeth McGowan headlined, “Koch Bros. Accused of Stonewalling Congress on Their Keystone XL Pipeline Interest.” When Reuters carried that piece, too, the company decided it was time to go on the offensive.

Phillip Ellender, whom Politico called “the Koch brothers’ enforcer” in a June profile, sent an e-mail to the wire service’s managing editor, Jack Reernick in May, which began:

For the second time in recent weeks, Reuters has permitted an agenda-driven advocacy organization, SolveClimate [referring to InsideClimate’s original name], to run an article on your news agency about Koch Industries that is factually inaccurate and beneath Reuters’ standards.

The letter went on to say that Koch had no financial stake in Keystone XL, that it was not a proposed shipper or customer of oil delivered by the pipeline, and that it had taken no position on the legislative proposal to construct the pipeline. It also called InsideClimate “a self-described advocacy organization, which is also easily discerned from the articles since they are littered with opinionated assertions about what it thinks the administration and Congress ought to do or not do.”

Richard Baum, Reuters’s general manager for New York and Canada replied:

We take feeds from several news organizations on the condition that they uphold Reuters standards. We’re satisfied that SolveClimate, which is a news organization, meets those. I have in particular checked that they contact companies for comment. SolveClimate says they have tried to get comment from you repeatedly without success.

Baum added that it was Reuters’s policy to direct complaints about “third-party content” to those who supplied it.

Ellender wrote back expressing dismay at Baum’s response. A few days later, according to the account laid out at Kochfacts.com, he followed up with another e-mail that laid out a variety of specific complaints about Sassoon. They included Sassoon’s ownership of Science First, Inc., which Sassoon once described on his LinkedIn page as a “communications consulting practice devoted to helping organizations working in the public interest to advance their agendas”; the fact that Science First received funding from The Energy Foundation (which supports actions to address climate change); and the fact that Sassoon had written a report for Greenpeace and what Ellender described as “advocacy articles” for The Huffington Post and National Geographic.

“Mr. Sassoon seems to have an active financial relationship with numerous groups that he is reporting on in your pages—and yet he is being presented to Reuters readers as an objective, legitimate news source,” Ellender concluded. “He also takes grants from advocacy groups with the explicit goal of helping advance their environmental agenda—a fact that is being obscured from Reuters readers.”

Baum rejected nearly all of Ellender’s contentions, writing that Sassoon had assured him that since Reuters.com began publishing stories from SolveClimate in 2010, neither Sassoon nor Science First had been involved in any business other than SolveClimate, and that Science First “is a shell company he uses exclusively as the legal entity of SolveClimate.” Baum pointed out that The Energy Foundation described its grant to SolveClimate as supporting “objective, nonpartisan reporting of climate and energy issues in 2010 midterms.”

With regard to Sassoon’s other writings, Baum said the work for Greenpeace and The Huffington Post predated his relationship with Reuters:

Mr Sassoon says that in-between that period and the start of the Reuters.com relationship he decided to focus his work exclusively on building up SolveClimate as a non-partisan organization. I think he made a subsequent misstep with the National Geographic blog post that you mention, but not a fatal one. The post was published this year and concerns an activist who at the time was awaiting trial, not convicted. It was an interesting story covered by many media outlets. This post was not written in a form that would have been published on Reuters.com, but then of course it wasn’t.

The question for us is, does it significantly undermine our confidence in his ability to run a non-partisan news organization? The answer is no. All journalists engaged in non-partisan reporting must be able to leave their personal political views at their front door when they go to work. Our confidence that Mr. Sassoon’s staff do that remains and has been strengthened by his recent appointment of a new executive editor. In September, CJR [wrote about InsideClimate’s decision to hire Susan White, a former senior editor at ProPublica.]

Ellender was displeased, vowing that, “To the extent that coverage by SolveClimate about us appears on Reuters, we intend to point out the conflicts of interest and also that Reuters is apparently tolerating them. And when that coverage is inaccurate or slanted, we will take all necessary action, including alerting readers that the reporting is unreliable and agenda-driven.”

Round Two

Ellender carried through on his promise. On October 5, InsideClimate and its syndication partners ran an article by Stacy Feldman, which revealed that Flint Hills Resources, Koch’s Alberta-based subsidiary, had told Canadian regulators in 2009 that it had “a direct and substantial interest in the application” to build Keystone XL.

Canada’s National Energy Board was holding hearings that led to its 2010 approval of its portion of the pipeline. Flint Hills Resources applied for and won what is known as “intervener status” in the hearings, stating that because it was “among Canada’s largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters, coordinating supply for its refinery in Pine Bend, Minnesota … [it had] “a direct and substantial interest in the application” to build the pipeline.

On Capitol Hill, the article prompted Waxman, whose first request that the Energy and Commerce Committee investigate Koch’s interest in Keystone XL was rebuffed, to repeat his plea. “There appears to be a direct contradiction between what Koch representatives told me and the assertion by a Koch subsidiary that it ‘has a direct and substantial interest’ in the Keystone XL pipeline,” he wrote in a letter to committee leaders. Koch Industries fired back almost immediately in a post at KochFacts.com, which read:

We have detailed publicly on numerous occasions (and to InsideClimate directly) why Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, a Koch subsidiary, applied for “intervener” status with the Canadian National Energy Board. An intervener in a NEB proceeding is entitled to gain access to information about the progress of a particular matter, in this case the “application” concerning the Keystone XL Pipeline project. Many others also applied and were granted intervener status in exactly the same way — including individual citizens, members of various First Nation groups, businesses, and environmental activists similar to Mr. Sassoon and InsideClimate.

… When a party applies to be an intervener, they formally state that they have an “interest” in the application that is being considered. That use of the word “interest” means, by first definition, curious or paying attention. But InsideClimate distorts that meaning as if it meant a financial interest or stake — a secondary but altogether different meaning of the word.

Around the same time that Kochfacts.com posted this missive, Koch launched its Google and Facebook ad campaign against Sassoon and InsideClimate.

Split Decision

Do Koch’s actions amount to media intimidation? Yes and no. InsideClimate deserves immense credit for digging where no other news outlet thought to dig. It exhibited the kind of dogged, investigative instinct that is too often lacking these days among its peers in the “mainstream media,” drawing Congressional attention in the process. But it failed to make its case.

The assertion in Sassoon’s February article that the Koch brothers are “positioned to be big winners” if the pipeline is approved is based on two pieces of circumstantial evidence: Koch’s role as a major player in Canadian oil industry and the 2009 market analysis that Keystone XL would drive up oil prices. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong. In fact, he’s probably right that Koch will benefit financially if the pipeline is built. But believing that and proving it—and establishing that Koch will benefit in a way that really matters—are two different things and it’s a distinction that gets to the heart of the standards of good journalism.

InsideClimate never made it clear who wrote the “market analysis” or what it was. Sassoon’s story, which linked to an Associated Press article that mentioned it, says it was “conducted by” TransCanada, while Feldman’s piece says it was “conducted for” TransCanada. In fact, the market analysis was part of the application to build and operate Keystone XL that TransCanada submitted to Canada’s National Energy Board in February 2009, and the original document is available in the board’s database. InsideClimate misrepresents what that document says in a small, but significant, way.

Sassoon reported that the estimated price spike crude would send at least $2 billion “from American consumers to Canadian and multinational oil interests.” What it actually says is that the spike would increase the revenue of the Canadian producing industry.

Feldman was clear about this in her piece, but tacked on another sentence that is problematic: “But the entire industry—including the refineries and shipping businesses where Koch Industries has concentrated its efforts—would also profit.” Feldman supports the statement with a quote from Danielle Droitsch, a senior adviser to the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental organization, saying that, “Keystone XL is about the whole industry.” That may be true in some senses, but it’s still a generalization. The idea that there will be no losers in the oil industry—that everybody will profit—is implausible.

And even if the entire oil industry is “well positioned” to benefit from Keystone XL’s approval, the question becomes, why focus on Koch? This was an issue that Waxman faced on Capitol Hill. When House Republicans rebuffed his request to investigate Koch, “he offered to expand his investigation to include all energy companies that might benefit from Keystone XL so as not to single out Koch,” InsideClimate reported.

The news site’s justification for the special attention was that if the Obama administration approves the project, the president could unwittingly help his adversaries. A quarter of Sassoon’s February article was devoted to rehashing the Koch brothers’ “war” on Obama and, according to the third paragraph:

What’s been left out of the ferocious debate over the pipeline, however, is the prospect that if president Obama allows a permit for the Keystone XL to be granted, he would be handing a big victory and great financial opportunity to Charles and David Koch, his bitterest political enemies and among the most powerful opponents of his clean economy agenda.

It is true that the Koch brothers have been huge boosters of conservative politicians and opponents of liberal ones. They are also, as InsideClimate pointed out, “the most powerful opponents of his clean economy agenda,” so it makes sense to investigate their interest in Keystone XL. But without proof that the company will profit directly or inordinately from the pipeline—or more specific information about the “victory and opportunity” it would confer—the political frame seems weak.

The evidence that Feldman presented in her October article—Flint Hills Resources’ statement that it had “direct and substantial interest in the application” to build pipeline—did little to help InsideClimate’s case. The application for “intervener status” was newsworthy because it contradicted Koch’s statement to Waxman that Keystone XL had “nothing to do with any of our businesses.” Yet the contradiction was mild, and Feldman’s article was remiss for not explaining the relatively innocuous context of what it means to be an “intervener,” that the language Koch used is fairly standard, and the fact that groups like the Sierra Club also applied for, and received, intervener status.

These quibbles notwithstanding, Koch’s suggestion to Reuters (via Ellender’s e-mails) and to readers (via the online ad campaign) that InsideClimate News is a deceptive advocacy site that ought to be abandoned is spurious and unwarranted, and Reuters should be commended for defending the integrity of its content partner.

The shortcomings in InsideClimate’s work are those of a young news site flexing new muscles in effort to establish itself as a major contributor to American journalism. And journalism it is. There are no correctable mistakes in InsideClimate’s work. The flaws in its articles are errors of omission, tone, and tenor. They should be remedied in future coverage, but InsideClimate should also keep pursuing its investigative instincts.