AGs United for Clean Power
920 sorta belated disambig
CEI massive retaliation, AG walker quit and vanished
SEE LEGAL SUPPRESSION CITY LAWSUITS
see horner 4 SAAG BS
---
===
Exxon’s Conspiracy Charges Aim To Derail Climate Lawsuits - DeSmog
by David Halperin, crossposted from Republic Report
Oil giant ExxonMobil is engaged in unprecedented efforts to sue and harass in court the very people who are investigating and suing the company over global warming. Faced with determined efforts by states and localities to hold it and other fossil fuel companies accountable for contributing to, and concealing the evidence of, climate change, Exxon is crying foul, contending that it’s the victim of politically- and financially-motivated conspiracies.
But in reality there are no improper schemes behind the cases against Exxon. Instead, what’s troubling is an apparent effort by Exxon, one of the world’s wealthiest corporations, and its powerhouse corporate lawyers, to avoid a courtroom reckoning by making specious legal arguments and outspending their foes in the legal arena.
Through its attorneys at New York’s Paul Weiss Rifkin Wharton and Garrison, and Texas-based firms Haynes & Boone and Cantey Hanger, ExxonMobil has sued the attorneys general of Massachusetts, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. And the company has recently targeted for depositions and document subpoenas, and threats of more lawsuits, numerous state officials, private attorneys, and advocates.
Exxon’s legal counterattack began after the Massachusetts, New York, and Virgin Islands AGs started investigating whether Exxon misled consumers and investors about the dangers of global warming and the potential impact of those dangers on the company’s bottom line. Investigative reporting in 2015 showed that Exxon scientists have known, and told Exxon management for decades, that burning fossil fuels was heating up the planet, but rather than educate the public on the dangers and change its business strategy, Exxon instead spent millions supporting efforts to question and deny the science of climate change. The state AGs also started investigating whether ExxonMobil has properly accounted for its oil reserves in the wake of global price drops and evidence of global warming.
The Massachusetts AG, Maura Healey, has explained that her investigation focuses “on whether Exxon may have misled consumers and/or investors with respect to the impact of fossil fuels on climate change, and climate change-driven risks to Exxon’s business,” in marketing energy products and in marketing Exxon securities, in violation of the state consumer protection law.
Similarly, New York’s AG, Eric Schneiderman, has indicated that he is investigating whether ExxonMobil’s public statements about climate change conflicted with its internal research, which could have led to “state law violations, including under the Martin Act,” the New York law that prohibits financial deception and fraud. (The New York AG reached settlements with Xcel Energy and Dynegy, Inc. in 2008 and with AES Corp. in 2009 based on those companies’ failures to disclose climate change risks in securities filings.)
In 2016, Exxon launched its response, suing Healey, Schneiderman, and U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general Claude Earl Walker in federal courts in its home region of Dallas-Fort Worth. The suit against Walker succeeded when his small office halted its investigation of the oil titan, but the other two AGs persisted.
U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade approved Exxon’s demand that Healey and Schneiderman submit to depositions by Exxon lawyers — an unwarranted, and virtually unprecedented move, as prosecutors aren’t normally required to face cross examination by people whom they’re investigating. Healey and Schneiderman fought back, seeking an unusual mid-case appeal to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, after which Kinkeade backed down, cancelled the depositions, and transferred the case to a federal court in New York.
As Exxon continues its efforts to convince a Manhattan federal judge to allow it to depose the two state AGs and, ultimately, to block their probes, it faces a new wave of lawsuits: since September 2017, eight cities and counties in California, plus New York City, have sued Exxon and other fossil fuel companies, alleging harm to their communities from climate change.
Related DeSmog investigation: “There is no doubt”: Exxon Knew CO2 Pollution Was A Global Threat By Late 1970s
The new lawsuits brought by California cities and counties — the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Cruz, Richmond, and Imperial Beach, plus Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and Marin counties — could pack a powerful punch. The suits allege that ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and others knew for decades that fossil fuel-driven global warming and rising seas threatened human life, but continued to expand their production, while deceiving consumers about the risks. Asserting that this conduct violates various state tort rules — public nuisance, failure to warn, design defect, negligence, and trespass — the suits demand that the companies pay for the costs of environmental harms like damages to seawalls, and dangers from severe weather, droughts, and fires.
These new lawsuits have a stronger chance of success than a 2008 case filed against fossil fuel companies by the small Alaskan community of Kivalina, seeking to recover the cost of relocating their village, which was threatened by rising sea levels. A federal judge dismissed that case, concluding that the village could not trace its injuries to any particular defendant. But today there is much more evidence that global warming is real, accelerating, and caused by burning fossil fuels, and that oil companies knew such information, suppressed it, and sought to counter it. Also, lawyers for the California cities and counties believe that recent scientific advances will make it easier to prove that the specific defendants’ activities harmed or threaten their client communities.
Faced with these mounting challenges to its conduct, ExxonMobil is relentlessly trying to change the subject.
In legal papers and public communications attacking the New York and Massachusetts attorney general investigations, Exxon has charged that various meetings among lawyers, advocates, and charitable foundation officials to discuss climate change liability issues, and communications between such people and attorneys general offices, are evidence of an untoward conspiracy against the company. Exxon further alleges that the AG probes attack the company’s First Amendment rights. “The attorneys general have violated Exxon Mobil’s right to participate in the national conversation about how to address the risks presented by climate change,” Dan Toal, one of Exxon’s lawyers at the Paul Weiss firm told Bloomberg.
Now Exxon and its allies are aiming to tie the new California lawsuits into this alleged conspiracy. The company is seeking to depose more than a dozen California officials, plus private attorney Matt Pawa, in anticipation of a threatened lawsuit alleging violation of the company’s free speech and other constitutional rights. In a January 8 Texas court petition seeking the depositions, Exxon charges, “A collection of special interests and opportunistic politicians are abusing law enforcement authority and legal process to impose their viewpoint on climate change.”
A recent op-ed by New York business consultant John Burnett attacked some of the California cities and counties for hiring outside lawyers to sue Exxon and paying them on a contingent basis — meaning they get paid if and only if Exxon loses in court or settles — even though this consultant acknowledges that the cities and counties couldn’t afford to pay the lawyers any other way. He calls the arrangement “a perilous new frontier in the world of ambulance-chasing by elected officials.” Similarly, Linda Kelly, general counsel for the National Manufacturers Association, told a reporter, “From Richmond, California, to New York City, activist-driven lawsuits are being filed to undermine manufacturers in America without regard to the facts.”
But these counterattacks on those pursuing Exxon are themselves fueled by false information and unwarranted charges.
I’ve worked for many years in association with some of the people Exxon has claimed are part of the alleged conspiracy. They aren’t conspirators. They generally do their work and make their cases out in the open. A 2012 meeting in La Jolla, California, among private lawyers and climate experts that Exxon repeatedly cites as the birthplace of the secret plot was meticulously documented and photographed by the participants themselves.
There’s also nothing sinister or unusual about scientists, private lawyers, other experts, or simply concerned citizens providing evidence and arguments to state attorney general offices regarding potential legal violations, including, indeed especially, in complex matters involving powerful actors. There’s nothing wrong with state and local law enforcement officials working in parallel on probing a common issue or target — it happens frequently. Nor are public statements by officials regarding those probes proof of political bias or an impingement on Exxon’s First Amendment rights. And nor is it unusual or improper for local governments to hire private lawyers to protect their residents’ interests in court.
The AGs and local officials are doing their jobs — pursuing evidence of law-breaking. If Exxon believes it has behaved properly with respect to climate change, it should use its expensive and talented lawyers to defend itself on the merits, rather than harassing others over invented conspiracy theories.
===
--
ref
...With Exxon CEO In Trump Spotlight, A Primer On The Company's Climate Court Fight
[
By David Halperin, Contributor
Attorney, advocate, writer at RepublicReport.org
Dec 12, 2016, 05:24 PM EST
|Updated Dec 13, 2017
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.
Donald Trump's public contemplation of picking ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to be U.S. Secretary of State raises a range of controversies, including Tillerson's dealmaking with Russia and close ties to Vladimir Putin. It also intensifies attention on ExxonMobil's escalating court battle with the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts over the question of whether the company improperly concealed information about climate change.
Just today, a federal judge in Texas, Ed Kinkeade, cancelled his controversial order directing the Massachusetts AG, Maura Healey, to come to his Dallas courtroom tomorrow morning to be questioned by ExxonMobil's lawyers.
Here's a summary of ExxonMobil's legal dispute with the attorneys general, so far:
Investigative reporting in the past year demonstratedthat Exxon scientists have known and had told Exxon management for decades that burning fossil fuels was heating up the planet. But rather than educate the public on the dangers and change its business strategy, Exxon instead spent millions supporting efforts to question and deny the science of climate change. There also are questions as to whether ExxonMobil has properly accounted for its oil reserves in the wake of global price drops and evidence of global warming.
Responding to those reports and other evidence, New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil in November 2015. ExxonMobil has produced more than 700,000 pages of documents to Schneiderman in response to his subpoena. On October 26, 2016, a New York judge ordered ExxonMobil and its auditor, PwC, to comply with a subpoena issued by Schneiderman seeking additional information regarding PwC's auditing of the oil company.
A group of state attorneys general met in New York on March 29, 2016, and consulted with several outside lawyers and experts on climate change issues. Following the meeting, the AGs, along with former Vice President Al Gore, held a press conference under the banner "AGs United for Clean Power" and announced they had formed a coalition to investigate ExxonMobil's conduct. The coalition included the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, the District Of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Soon after, in April 2016, Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey issued a civil investigative demand (CID) to ExxonMobil. U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general Claude Walker issued a subpoena to the company the same month.
ExxonMobil promptly sued Walker in Texas state court in Fort Worth to block the Virgin Islands subpoena.
Then, on June 15, 2016, ExxonMobil sued Healey in federal court in Dallas to block her civil investigative demand.
On June 29, Walker, facing expensive litigation against ExxonMobil's legal team, agreed to withdraw his subpoena, and Exxon dropped its suit. Walker said then that he planned to continue to investigate ExxonMobil and would keep his eye on Healey's effort.
ExxonMobil argues in its suit against Healey that the Massachusetts AG is acting out of political motivation, and there is no legitimate basis for the AG probes, and that the First Amendment shields the company from scrutiny for its public statements -- a claim that leading constitutional law experts sharply dispute, because it is a settled legal principle that the First Amendment doesn't protect fraud.
In August 2016, fourteen attorneys general -- from Maryland, New York, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia, and Virgin Islands -- filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Healey, while eleven AGs -- Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and Nevada -- filed a brief supporting ExxonMobil.
On October 13, citing ExxonMobil's arguments, U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade issued an order permitting ExxonMobil to take limited discovery regarding attorney general Healey's comments and actions, in order to examine whether Healey served the CID in bad faith. Armed with this ruling, ExxonMobil, on October 24, served on attorney general Healey more than a hundred discovery requests.
Exxon also asked Judge Kinkeade for permission to add New York attorney general Schneiderman as a defendant in the case, a motion the judge granted. On November 4, ExxonMobil sought depositions of Healey, Schneiderman, and two assistant attorneys general in each of their offices.
On November 17, Judge Kinkeade issued an order directing Healey and Schneiderman to come to his courtroom in Dallas on December 13 to face depositions from ExxonMobil's legal team.
On November 29, Exxon withdrew its deposition notice for Schneiderman; it continues to seek other discovery from Schneiderman's office, including depositions of two top environmental enforcement officials in that office.
ExxonMobil also has subpoenaed in the Texas lawsuit some of the non-profit organizations and lawyers who have provided Healey and Schneiderman with information and expertise regarding the matter.
Healey said she would "vigorously oppose" Judge Kinkeade's order for her to be deposed. "Our position in this ligation is that the authorities in Texas, and specifically the federal court down there, has no jurisdiction over state attorneys general and the work of their offices," Healey told reporters in Boston on November 21. "It's been disappointing to see Exxon fight the request for basic information. Our job as attorneys general is to be able to ask questions."
Healey filed amotion asking the judge to reconsider his rulings. On December 6, 2016, Healey petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit for a writ of mandamus to reverse the order.
Schneiderman, as well as the outside groups and lawyers, are also opposing Exxon's efforts to take discovery in the Texas case. (Disclosure: I have advised some of these groups.)
On December 9, Judge Kinkeade denied Healey's motion to suspend Exxon's discovery in the case pending review by the 5th Circuit and also denied Schneiderman's motion to quash discovery.
On December 9, Schneiderman filed a motion with Judge Kinkeade to stay discovery against him pending appellate review -- the same type of motion that Kinkeade had denied Healey earlier that same day. In his papers, Schneiderman said that he intended to seek mandamus before the 5th Circuit on December 12.
On December 12, Judge Kinkeade issued a one-line order cancelling his prior order that Healey be deposed on December 13. The judge did not block any other discovery or indicate whether or when he would revisit the issue of deposing Healey.
ExxonMobil's lawsuit is a virtually unprecedented effort by a corporation to sue and investigate state prosecutors who are conducting an investigation of that corporation. Although Judge Kinkeade stated that he found sufficient grounds for ExxonMobil to investigate whether the AGs had acted in bad faith, in fact the AGs have been engaged in activities that are commonplace and entirely appropriate for state prosecutors: (1) cooperating with AGs from other states, (2) consulting with experts about possible unlawful activity, (3) seeking documents to investigate that activity, and (4) speaking in public about the matters under review.
To the extent that ExxonMobil has substantive and procedural objections to the attorneys general demands for information, it has every right to raise those objections in the Massachusetts and New York state courts, and indeed ExxonMobil is already doing just that.
ExxonMobil now also faces an investigation from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, initiated in August 2016, examining a similar set of issues. In addition, in January 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice, responding to a congressional request to investigate ExxonMobil, referred the matter to the FBI.
Meanwhile, U.S. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Science Committee, has subpoenaed documents from Healey, Schneiderman, and other state attorneys general, as well as lawyers and outside groups connected to the ExxonMobil matter. Over the summer, Smith held a committee hearing regarding his demands. For the most part, the AGs, groups, and attorneys have declined to provide any information in response to the subpoenas.
UPDATE 12-14-16: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit yesterday dismissed Healey's mandamus petition and motion for a stay of Judge Kinkeade's orders as moot, meaning overtaken by events. It's unclear how the 5th Circuit judges think Healey's claims are moot, when all Judge Kinkeade did was cancel the deposition of Healey set for December 13; he didn't expressly stop all the other discovery that was part of Healey's motion. However, when he cancelled the Healey deposition, Judge Kinkeade issued a separate order directing all parties to submit new briefs by January 4 on the issue of whether his court has personal jurisdiction over the two AGs -- suggesting he might be reconsidering issues in the case.
UPDATE 12-15-16: This morning Judge Kinkeade has issued a one-line order: "The Court hereby stays all discovery pending further order from this Court." Coupled with his order Monday cancelling Exxon's deposition of Attorney General Healey, this represents a dramatic reversal by Judge Kinkeade of his unusual prior rulings favoring ExxonMobil. The reversal came after Healey had petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals to block Kinkeade's orders (and of course after Trump's nomination of Tillerson increased public scrutiny of the matter). But this could be only a temporary reversal while Judge Kinkeade reconsiders some of the legal issues, including whether he has jurisdiction over the AGs in the first place.
*This article also appears on Republic Report.
===
1/10th factoid origin?
HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-LomborgB-20151201
18 pp
The impact and cost of the 2015 Paris Climate Summit,$with$special$focus$on$US$policies Tuesday,$December$1$2015, 10:00am,$2318$Rayburn$House$Office$Building The House$of$Representatives,$Committee$on$Science,$Space$and$Technology Testimony*by*Bjorn*Lomborg,*President,*Copenhagen*Consensus*Cente
The impact and cost of the 2015 Paris Climate
Summit, with special focus on US policies
Tuesday, December 1 2015, 10:00am, 2318 Rayburn House Office Building
The House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space and Technology
TestimonybyBjornLomborg,President,CopenhagenConsensus*Cente
5 2
Summary:
Global warming is real, mostly man-made and a net problem. However, the
current Paris COP21 promises will do little to tackle the problem while
costing a fortune.
The only peer-reviewed estimate shows that the climate impact of all Paris
promises 2016J2030 will reduce temperature in 2100 by 0.08°F (0.05°C).
Even if all countries continue their promised reductions for 2031, 2032 …
until 2100, it will reduce temperatures by just 0.31°F (0.17°C).
The US Clean Power Plan will reduce global temperatures by maximally
0.023°F (0.013°C) in 2100.
The entire US climate promises will reduce global temperatures by just
0.057°F (0.031°C) by 2100.
The cost of Paris is substantial. This submission uses the best available
climate economic model ensembles from the Stanford Energy Modeling
Forum, the Asia Modeling Exercise and the EU/EPA CLIMACAPJLAMP project.
It finds the cost for the US climate promises are likely 154J172 billion every
Figure 1 shows (most clearly in the enlargement in the bottom right) that the
temperature reduction resulting from the US Clean Power Plan by the end of the
century will be 0.007°F (0.004°C) if the policy is gradually abandoned after 2030.
If the Clean Power Plan is continued throughout the century, reducing 535Mt
CO₂ each year from the baseline, it will reduce global temperatures by 0.023°F(0.013°C) by 2100*
year in lost GDP by 2025. This assumes that all US climate policies are enacted in the most efficient way, which is very unlikely. If they are not, the peer-reviewed literature suggests the costs will at likely double.
The costs for the world is at least close to 1 trillion per year in 2030, with likely costs due to policy inefficiency doubling to almost 2 trillion per year:
Billion per year Most effective policy Most likely policy
USA 154 308
EU 305 610
China 200 400
Mexico 80 160
Rest of World 185 370
Global cost 924 1848
The$impact$and$cost$of$the$2015$Paris$Climate$
Summit,$with$special$focus$on$US$policies
Tuesday,$December$1$2015, 10:00am,$2318$Rayburn$House$Office$Building
The House$of$Representatives,$Committee$on$Science,$Space$and$Technology
TestimonybyBjornLomborg,President,CopenhagenConsensus*Cente
5 2
Summary:
Global$warming$is$real,$mostly$manJmade$and$a$net$problem.$However,$the$
current$Paris$COP21$promises$will$do$little$to$tackle$the$problem$while$
costing$a$fortune.
The$only$peerJreviewed$estimate$shows$that$the$climate$impact$of$all$Paris$
promises$2016J2030$will$reduce$temperature$in$2100$by$0.08°F$(0.05°C).$
Even$if$all$countries$continue$their$promised$reductions$for$2031,$2032$…$
until$2100,$it$will$reduce$temperatures$by just$0.31°F$(0.17°C).
The$US$Clean$Power$Plan$will$reduce$global$temperatures$by$maximally$
0.023°F$(0.013°C)$in$2100.
The$entire$US$climate$promises$will$reduce$global$temperatures$by$just$
0.057°F$(0.031°C)$by$2100.
The$cost$of$Paris$is$substantial.$This$submission$uses$the$best$available$
climateJeconomic$model$ensembles$from$the$Stanford$Energy$Modeling$
Forum,$the$Asia$Modeling$Exercise$and$the$EU/EPA$CLIMACAPJLAMP project.
It$finds$the$cost$for$the$US$climate$promises$are$likely$$154J172$billion$every$
Figure!1 shows!(most!clearly!in!the!enlargement!in!the!bottom!right)!that!the!
temperature!reduction!resulting!from!the!US!Clean!Power!Plan!by!the!end!of!the!
century!will!be!0.007°F!(0.004°C)!if!the!policy!is!gradually!abandoned!after!2030.!
If!the!Clean!Power!Plan!is!continued!throughout!the!century,!reducing!535Mt!
CO₂!each!year!from!the!baseline,!it!will!reduce!global!temperatures!by!0.023°F!
(0.013°C)!by!2100
year$in$lost$GDP$by$2025.$This$assumes$that$all$US$climate$policies$are$
enacted$in$the$most$efficient$way,$which$is$very$unlikely.$If$they$are$not,$the$
peerJreviewed$literature$suggests$the$costs$will$at$likely$double.
The$costs$for$the$world$is$at$least$close$to$$1$trillion$per$year$in$2030,$with$
likely$costs$due$to$policy$inefficiency$doubling$to$almost$$2$trillion$per$year:
Billion$$$per$year Most$effective$policy Most$likely$policy
USA 154 308
EU 305 610
China 200 400
Mexico 80 160
Rest$of$World 185 370
Global$cost 924 1848
"Green 20" AGs: What is it REALLY about? | The Federalist Society
Ben Massey
Debra Ann Livingston
Devin Allan DeBacker
C. Boyden Gray
May 13 2016
Blog Post
"Green 20" AGs: What is it REALLY about?
| Topics: | Federalism & Separation of Powers |
Last year the New York Times won a Pulitzer for reporting critically on the unsurprising and perfectly legal efforts of private businesses to encourage Republican state Attorneys General to combat federal regulations harmful to their State economies.[1] Compare that to the mainstream media’s silence about the forces behind a much less conventional group of Democratic Attorneys General who have teamed up with former Vice President Al Gore to intimidate their opponents and to suppress any dissent from the orthodoxy of the Obama Administration’s climate change strategy.
Calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power,” this group has instigated wide-ranging investigations into the private communications of businesses and non-profit organizations, backed up by the threat of criminal prosecution.[2]
As part of this witch-hunt, the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands sent subpoenas to conservative groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, seeking ten years of private communication (for years 1997 to 2007) related to ExxonMobil and climate change.[3] This follows earlier subpoenas to Exxon covering more than 40 years—all part of a curious effort to prove that the petroleum giant somehow knew and covered up the supposed risks of climate change before they were known to the rest of the scientific community.
This is likely to be a fool’s errand, because Exxon’s knowledge about the state of the science was far from secret. The company published a wide array of mainstream, peer-reviewed climate science articles during the time period in question—a time well before the emergence of any “consensus” on the science of man-made climate change.
More fundamentally, this fishing expedition blatantly violates the First Amendment rights of the targeted organizations with no legitimate law enforcement objective in sight. The subpoenas are in reality part of a broader, systematic attempt by the Left to suppress dissent, by cutting off corporate funding to political advocacy groups they disfavor.
This is amply illustrated by the recent CEI subpoena. The subpoena rests on Exxon’s purported violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (CICO), which has a five year statute of limitations.[4] Yet the subpoena improperly seeks to compel CEI to produce a decade’s worth of documents that fall completely outside the statute of limitations. Exxon decided to cut ties with CEI and other dissenting groups in 2007, but this has not stopped the AG from harassing CEI. [5]
These actions will have the intended effect of discouraging not only scientific dissent, but also political dissent, over the costs and benefits of mitigating the risk of climate change.[6] But there are good reasons not to credit unblinkingly all of the accepted wisdom of current climate change policy. Despite a staggering price tag, current national and international climate policy has very little to show for itself in terms of projected carbon emission reductions, much less any actual change to the temperature of the globe.
At base, changing global temperatures may not be the point. When Congressman David McKinley asked U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy whether the cost of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan—$64 billion annually by one measure[7]—is worthwhile “[i]f it doesn’t have an impact on climate change around the world,” her answer was that the rule has “had enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris.”[8] As strange as it may seem for the head of EPA to admit our nation’s climate change policy is one big PR strategy, that response was consistent with what McCarthy said about the rule when it was first proposed: “This is not about pollution control,” she said in another congressional hearing. “[I]t really is an investment opportunity.”[9]
The Paris agreement that McCarthy referred to will do little more. Even if every nation fulfilled every promise in the treaty between now and 2030, it would reduce the global temperature by less than a tenth of a degree by 2100.[10] If those promises are extended to 2100, the resulting temperature effect will still be only three tenths of a degree.
The projected costs of the Paris agreement—at least $154 billion per year in lost GDP in the United States alone[11]—would be much better spent on research and development, the kind of work that ExxonMobil has been doing for decades without any government mandate.[12] Indeed, it would be interesting to know what portion of the enormous public expenditure on climate change “policy”—direct budget outlays and indirect regulatory costs—has actually funded practical research with the potential to solve the problem at hand. What the public sees, by contrast, is a magnificent PR machine, but few if any answers.
Setting aside the Left’s failure to offer any viable affirmative-climate change strategy of its own, the Democratic-Attorney-General-led witch hunt against Exxon is terribly counterproductive. It discourages companies from the kind of pioneering research that Exxon undertook before climate change was a household term, and it penalizes a company that has been more engaged than most in promoting efficient carbon reduction policies. Since 2007, Exxon has advocated a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which even the Sierra Club’s chief climate counsel agreed was “the best approach to climate policy,” and which would be best implemented at a time of low energy prices.
At bottom, this program of intimidation is not really about climate change. It is about using a hot-button political issue to exert speech control over as wide a swath of the economy as possible. It bears a troubling similarity to recent attempts to monopolize speech and association in other fields, as well as in academia where much of speech suppression started. There was a time when the United States could justifiably criticize China and its ilk for stamping out dissent. These days, centralized government authorities in both countries seem to be converging on a strangely similar method of suppressing freedom of speech and association.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/politics/energy-firms-in-secretive-alliance-with-attorneys-general.html
[2] http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/02/al-gore-ny-attorney-general-launch-ags-united-for-clean-power-coalition/
[3] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434167/competitive-enterprise-institute-subpoena-attack-exxon-us-all
[4] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434167/competitive-enterprise-institute-subpoena-attack-exxon-us-all
[5] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16593606/ns/us_news-environment/t/exxon-cuts-tiesglobal-warming-skeptics/
[6] http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-11-10/schneiderman-s-dangerous-crusade-against-exxon-mobil
[7] http://www.americaspower.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NERA-CPP-Final-Nov-7.pdf.
[8] http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/epa-chief-climate-regs-meant-to-show-leadership-not-fight-global-warming/#ixzz45Y4p43k7
[9] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/epa-chief-not-about-pollution-controlits-investment-strategy (“And the great thing about this proposal is it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control. It’s about increased efficiency at our plants . . . . It’s about investments in renewables and clean energy. It’s about investments in people’s ability to lower their electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units.”).
[10] http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20151201/104257/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-LomborgB-20151201.pdf.
[11] http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20151201/104257/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-LomborgB-20151201.pdf.
[12] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/climate-change-real-paris-treaty-costly-few-benefits-research-green-energy-column/83292440/.
---
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/05/climate-change-attorneys-general
no lnx
POLITICS & POLICY
The Climate-Change Gang
By SCOTT PRUITT
& LUTHER STRANGE
May 17, 2016
The Obama administration lawlessly rewards its supporters and punishes its enemies.
The United States was born out of a revolution against, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, an “arbitrary government” that put men on trial “for pretended offences”and “abolish[ed] the Free System of English laws.” Brave men and women stood up to that oppressive government, and this, the greatest democracy of them all, one that is governed by the rule of law and not by men, is the product.
Some of our states have forgotten this founding principle and are acting less like Jefferson and Adams and more like George III. A group of Democratic attorneys general has announced it intends to criminally investigate oil and gas companies that have disputed the science behind man-made global warming. Backed bygreen-energy interests and environmentalist lobbying groups, the coalition has promised to use intrusive investigations, costly litigation, and criminal prosecutions to silence critics of its climate-change agenda. Pretended offenses, indeed.
We won’t be joining this coalition, and we hope that those attorneys general who have joined will disavow it. Healthy debate is the lifeblood of American democracy, and global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.
RELATED: Obama’s Latest Executive Action: Spend Hundreds of Billions to Not Help the Environment]
Sadly, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this tactic of advancing the climate-change agenda by any means necessary. President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is a particularly noteworthy example. This EPA regulation, one of the most ambitious ever proposed, will shutter coal-fired power plants, significantly increase the price of electricity for American consumers, and enact by executive fiat the very same cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions that Congress has rejected.
The Clean Power Plan was promulgated without any consultation with Congress.No bills were debated, no votes were taken, and the representatives of the American people had no opportunity to object or offer their own suggestions. The checks and balances built into our system of government were simply ignored as inconvenient impediments to the president’s agenda.
The Clean Power Plan was promulgated without any consultation with Congress. No bills were debated, no votes were taken.
But in our states, we believe in and govern with respect for the rule of law, rather than by ambition to use the power of our governments to stifle political opponents. That is why we are part of a very different kind of coalition, a coalition of 29 states seeking to vindicate the rule of law by challenging the legality of the Clean Power Plan in our courts. The 29 states and state attorneys general who are part of this effort respect our proper role, which is neither to pick winners and losers in the energy sectornor to silence those with whom we disagree. Rather, our job is to hold the EPA accountableto the laws that created it and to fulfill our statutory duties to ensure that consumers in our states have access to reliable, affordable energy. We will continue to pursue those goals and to present our arguments in the courts and in the public square, treating our opponents with the respect they deserve.
RELATED: Obama’s ‘Clean Power Plan’ Punishes Workers, Consumers, and States That Voted for Romney]
It’s unfortunate that this respect is not always returned. In their press conference, the group of state attorneys general called themselves an “unprecedented coalition.” On this point, they are correct. Rarely in our nation’s history has the police power of the state been so eagerly used to intimidate citizens [corporations?] into silence.
But even more troubling are internal e-mails and other documents that indicate that this coercion was orchestrated not by the attorneys general themselves, but by green-energy advocacy groups using these officials as puppets to further their extreme agendas. This should frighten us all. Outside groups should not be able to use the power of the government as a sword to go after their political opponents.
We do not doubt the sincerity of the beliefs of our fellow attorneys general about climate change and the role human activity plays in it. [why/how could you? thy can and shd doubt yours?] But we call upon them to press those beliefs through debate [like in a courtroom?], not through governmental intimidation of those who disagree with them. Few things could be more un-American.
— Scott Pruitt is the attorney general of Oklahoma. Luther Strange is the attorney general of Alabama.
---
---
May 18, 2016
13 Representatives sitting on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Committee send letters to 17 state Attorneys General and 8 non-governmental organizations, including Greenpeace. The letters accuse the agencies and organizations of tampering with companies’, organizations’ and individuals’ rights to free speech. Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard responds that “America’s least-respected politicians have now courageously stepped up to defend one of America’s most-hated corporations from scrutiny.” Data from Oil Change International shows that the 13 Representatives who sent the letter have received $2,848,418 in campaign contributions from coal, oil and gas companies since 1999.
---
what happened to ES subpoena for 40 yrs docs?
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05112015/new-york-attorney-general-eric-schneiderman-subpoena-Exxon-climate-documents
new York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office demanded that ExxonMobil Corporation give investigators documents spanning four decades of research findings and communications about climate change, according to a person familiar with the year-long probe.}:
An 18-page subpoena issued to the oil giant late Wednesday seeks documents from Exxon (NYSE:XOM) related to its research into the causes and effects of climate change, to the integration of climate change findings into business decisions, to communications with the board of directors and to marketing and advertising materials on climate change, the person said.
Investigators have been looking closely into the company's disclosures to shareholders and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the subpoena also sought documents related to those communications. The probe is based on New York's powerful shareholder-protection statute, the Martin Act, as well as the state's consumer protection and general business laws.
"We have received a subpoena for production of documents relating to climate change from the attorney general of New York and are assessing our response," Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said in a statement. "ExxonMobil has included information about the business risk of climate change for many years in our 10-K, Corporate Citizenship Report and in other reports to shareholders. We unequivocally reject allegations that ExxonMobil suppressed climate change research contained in media reports that are inaccurate distortions of ExxonMobil's nearly 40-year history of climate research that was conducted publicly in conjunction with the Department of Energy, academics and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
While investigators have been looking into what Exxon knew about climate change and what it said about it to the public and shareholders for some time, recent investigative news reports by InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times made the issue "more ripe," the person said. Lawmakers, presidential candidates, environmentalists and climate scientists have recently begun calling for investigations of Exxon under federal racketeering and securities laws.
"Just as New York's Teddy Roosevelt took on the Standard Oil Trust a century ago, New York's attorney general has shown great courage in holding to account arguably the richest and most powerful company on Earth," Bill McKibben, founder of the advocacy organization 350.org said in a statement. "We hope that other state attorney generals and the federal Department of Justice, and the Securities Exchange Commission will show similar fortitude."
New York's Martin Act forbids "any fraud, deception, concealment, suppression, false pretense" or "any representation or statement which is false" and gives the state broad powers of discovery.
Some climate advocacy groups have long urged that Schneiderman, a second-term Democrat, investigate Exxon and other companies under the 1921 statute.
Schneiderman and predecessors have used that power to probe national and international corporations on the grounds that their securities are traded in New York. Former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer used the Martin Act to prosecute abuses on Wall Street more than a decade ago. Former Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, now the governor, investigated five coal-burning utility companies using it, arguing that they failed to provide a complete picture of climate risks in their regulatory filings. The utilities agreed to make more complete disclosures.
In the subpoena issued Wednesday, investigators requested documents going as far back as Jan. 1, 1977. Included in the request are:
- Documents on climate change prepared for or by industry groups including the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Oil & Gas Association and the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association.
- Documents related to Exxon's support or funding of advocacy groups involved in climate change.
- Marketing and advertising documents about climate change, including communications to employees and spokesmen about how to discuss the subject, as well as advertisements and other public-facing documents.
PUBLISHED UNDER:
---
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17102016/exxonmobil-climate-change-research-seeks-block-new-york-attorney-general-investigation-subpeona-eric-schneiderman
oct 2016
after cooperating for nearly a year with the New York attorney general's office, ExxonMobil is now suing to block the state's sweeping subpoena that seeks records dealing with the company's climate research going back nearly 40 years.
The oil giant filed a motion Monday in Texas federal court asking to amend its pending lawsuit against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to include New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. The litigation seeks to halt their investigations, which the company calls a conspiracy to further their political agenda.
"The improper political bias that inspired the New York and Massachusetts investigations disqualifies Attorneys General Schneiderman and Healey from serving as the disinterested prosecutors required by the Constitution," according to an unsigned news release issued by Exxon announcing the new litigation.
Eric Soufer, a spokesman for Schneiderman, called Exxon's motion "stunt litigation" that has no merit and will not stop New York's investigation.
"As we've seen for months, Exxon will do everything in its power to distract, delay, and avoid any investigation into its actions, which may have violated state securities and consumer fraud laws," he said.
Exxon's motion comes less than a week after the federal judge in Texas dealt a setback to Healey's investigation by demanding she turn over documents that might show she has prejudged Exxon's fate based on her political views.
"Today's motion is yet another attempt by Exxon Mobil to impede state investigations into whether the company deceived consumers and investors about the impact of fossil fuels on the environment and Exxon's business," said Chloe Gotsis, a spokeswoman for Healey.
In attacking the New York investigation, Exxon called Schneiderman's probe "politically charged."
"As the investigation unfolded, events further suggested that Attorney General Schneiderman's inquiry had more to do with politics than law enforcement," according to the motion.
In the year since New York issued an 18-page subpoena for documents related to Exxon's research into the causes and effects of climate change, the company said it has turned over more than 1 million pages of documents.
But Exxon now says it believes Schneiderman "has no intention of fairly evaluating ExxonMobil's substantial production of documents," according to the motion.
The company cites what it calls a change in tactics by Schneiderman.
"Less than a month ago, and well after ExxonMobil commenced this action, the Attorney General's spokesman stated that the Company's 'historic climate change research' was no longer 'the focus of this investigation,'" according to the motion.
"Rather than close his investigation, Attorney General Schneiderman shifted focus. He directed ExxonMobil to produce documents concerning its estimation of oil and gas reserves."
That investigative avenue would be geared toward New York's consumer laws that safeguards against financial fraud. Schneiderman has said his investigation rests in large part on how the company informed investors about financial risks based on the impact to the company's oil reserves—estimates based on the potential of future regulations designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
Exxon argues in its motion that Schneiderman's probe is "particularly egregious" because Securities and Exchange Commission regulations prohibit companies from considering the impact of future regulations when estimating reserves.
"The theory that the Attorney General has promoted to media outlets requires that ExxonMobil adopt his assumptions about the likelihood of possible future climate change regulations and then incorporate those assumptions into its estimation of proved reserves and its determination of whether an asset has been impaired," according to the motion. "But that theory of 'massive securities fraud' cannot be reconciled with SEC rules and regulations."
Despite a recent report that the SEC itself is looking into Exxon's climate risk disclosures, the agency would not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.
As it has for more than six months, Exxon decried Schneiderman's role in forming a coalition of attorneys general that vowed to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for any misconduct associated with climate change.
"The Attorney General pledged that the coalition would 'deal with the problem of climate change' by using law enforcement powers 'creatively' and 'aggressively' to force ExxonMobil and other energy companies to support the coalition's preferred policy responses to climate change," according to the motion.
As the case in Texas continues to heat up, Schneiderman's office filed its own motion Friday in New York State court to compel the company's independent auditor to comply with a subpoena.
Since being served the subpoena in August, Schneiderman said PricewaterhouseCoopers has declined to turn over critical documents, citing Exxon's assertion of an accountant-client privilege. Caroline Nolan, a spokeswoman for PricewaterhouseCoopers, said the company has cooperated with this investigation since receiving the subpoena. "The firm has responded promptly to the request and will continue to do so," she said.
The subpoena hits at the question by New York investigators of whether Exxon has had longstanding knowledge of the risks associated with climate change, including the risks posed to its business by climate change-related policies and regulations. That question is a key element in determining whether the company violated the state's consumer fraud statutes.
"Exxon's publicly-filed reports state that in the course of its audits of Exxon, PwC examines whether the disclosures in Exxon's financial statements are supported by evidence and issues opinions as to whether Exxon's financial statements fairly and accurately represent its financial position," according to the motion to require disclosure of records connected with the company's assessment of the risk of climate change.
"Notwithstanding its apparent knowledge of climate change-related risks, Exxon appears to have downplayed those risks in public statements."
PUBLISHED UNDER:
==
new coalition of state attorneys general gave vocal notice to fossil fuel companies on Tuesday that obfuscating the realities of climate change has put ExxonMobil and its peers under the searchlight of a broadening multistate investigation.
Announcing an alliance of top state law enforcement officers to press for urgent climate action on multiple legal fronts, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was joined by six of his counterparts, their ranks bolstered by aides from nine additional states and the District of Columbia. The group met in New York to plan strategies and share information.
"The First Amendment, ladies and gentlemen, does not give you the right to commit fraud," said Schneiderman, who in November issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil under the state's far-reaching securities and consumer protection statutes.One after another, the top legal officials from Vermont, Virginia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut and the Virgin Islands vowed to hold fossil fuel companies accountable if their words and deeds on climate change had crossed into illegality.
"Every attorney general does work on fraud cases, and we are pursuing this as we would any other fraud matter. You have to tell the truth, you can't make misrepresentations of the kinds we've seen here," he said on Tuesday. "The scope of the problem we are facing, the size of the corporate entities and their alliances, the trade associations and other groups, is massive and it requires a multistate effort."
All of those attorneys general are Democrats, and as the group stood at a podium bearing the words "AGs United for Clean Power" they made clear that their agenda also extended to supporting the centerpiece of President Obama's climate policies, the Clean Power Plan. The group wrote a brief defending those regulations, which have been put on hold by the Supreme Court pending litigation at a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.Attorney General Maura Healey of Massachusetts explicitly disclosed that she, too, has opened an investigation into ExxonMobil's actions and statements involving climate change. Attorney General Claude Walker of the Virgin Islands said he had launched a fossil fuel investigation as well. Schneiderman later suggested that it involved Exxon, and also said that California has undertaken a probe of Exxon, although that state's attorney general, Kamala Harris, was represented by staff.
"Everyone from President Obama on down is under a relentless assault from well-funded, highly aggressive and morally vacant forces that are trying to block every step by the federal government to take meaningful action," Schneiderman said. "So today we are sending a message that at least some of us, actually a lot of us, in state government are prepared to step into this battle with an unprecedented level of commitment and coordination."
"If there are companies—whether utilities or fossil fuel companies—committing fraud in an effort to maximize their short-term profit at the expense of the people we represent," he continued, "we want to find out about it and want to expose it and we want to pursue them to the fullest extent of the law, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law."
Schneiderman has demanded that Exxon turn over documents on climate science research and communications covering a span of almost four decades. He acted after InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times disclosed decades-old documents describing Exxon's early understanding of the emerging science of climate change.
"The investigations targeting our company threaten to have a chilling effect on private sector research," Exxon's vice president of public and government affairs, Suzanne McCarron, said in a lengthy statement on its website. The company also responded on Twitter, saying the allegations of climate deceit are "preposterous" and "politically motivated and baseless," and that it is assessing its legal options.[twt]
attorneys general were joined by former vice president Al Gore, who predicted that the formation of their alliance would be a turning point.
"We cannot continue to allow the fossil fuel industry or any industry to treat our atmosphere like an open sewer or mislead the public about the impact they have on the health of our people and the health of our planet," Gore said.
"Those who are using unfair and illegal means to try to prevent the change are likely now, finally, at long last, to be held to account," he said.
Gore compared the activities of Exxon to the tobacco industry in the 1990s, conduct that also faced a legal onslaught sparked by state attorneys general.
It's a similarity that Gore said "may well hold up rather precisely."
Gore and Schneiderman called it unconscionable that the fossil fuel industry has spent millions of dollars on polished public relations campaigns to muddle the truth, employing legions of lobbyists to stymie regulation and financing organizations devoted to discrediting prevailing climate science.
For all the saber-rattling, the attorneys general did not describe any specifics of their investigations. Schneiderman noted that each state's laws and powers are different, and said that law enforcement officials preferred not to show their hands, at least for now.
Nor was there any sign of federal participation in the alliance.
Demands for a federal investigation of Exxon have come from federal and state lawmakers, the Democratic presidential candidates, environmentalists and climate scientists. So far, the U. S. Department of Justice has asked the FBI to evaluate whether the company's actions might justify legal action under RICO, the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law, which is aimed at illegal conspiracies.
In his remarks, Gore praised InsideClimate News and cited the L.A. Times and the Columbia School of Journalism for their investigative reporting that, after independent investigations, reached similar conclusions about Exxon's role in climate research and its attempts to undermine the consensus on climate science.
"The facts that were publicly presented in those series of articles that I have mentioned are extremely troubling," Gore said.
Schneiderman said he was not surprised that Exxon and the fossil fuel industry would fight back.
"It's too early to know what we're going to find with Exxon, but we intend to work as aggressively as possible, but also as carefully as possible," he said.
"We're very aware of the fact that everything we do here is going to be subject to attack by folks who have a huge financial interest in discrediting us," he said. "So we're going to be aggressive and creative but we're also going to be as careful and meticulous and deliberate as we can."
All of the attorneys general talked about the impact of climate change on their states, including flooding, severe weather and sea level rise. Climate change is already responsible for significant and worsening damages, they said.
"Our natural resources are the lifeblood of our state's economy and our quality of life," said Attorney General Janet Mills of Maine, who was not at the podium but issued a supportive statement. "Global climate change demands immediate action and I am committed to using the authority of my office to address the problem in a meaningful way."
The speakers faulted partisan politics in Washington for slowing efforts to fight global warming and for allowing the fossil fuel industry almost free rein to deceive the public about the harm of global warming.
"We can stand up and take action where others will not," said Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen.
The full press conference is here:
==
bs gloat recycled
energy in depth BS
https://eidclimate.org/two-years-standing-al-gore-new-york-ag-still-little-show-exxonknew-campaign/
TWO YEARS AFTER STANDING BY AL GORE, NEW YORK AG STILL HAS LITTLE TO SHOW FOR #EXXONKNEW CAMPAIGN
MARCH 29, 2018 | KATIE BROWN AND SPENCER WALRATH
Last year, EID observed how the infamous AGs United for Clean Power press conference on March 29, 2016, had generated nothing substantive one year later. It is now the two year anniversary, and the situation has not changed: the bluster and media hype is still just bluster and hype. The lack of action is newsworthy, but it’s also hard to report on things that didn’t happen. So we’re just reposting our coverage from last year, with a few small edits.
On March 29, 2016, a coalition of nearly 20 state attorneys general held a press conference to announce a joint campaign to investigate and prosecute ExxonMobil, based on the spurious accusation that the company hid its scientific findings on climate change. The AGs invited former Vice President and climate change activist Al Gore to present the case at the now infamous “AGs United for Clean Power”event held in New York.
One year Two years later, the campaign is in disarray. Internal divisions have forced some of the AGs to focus on other tasks, if not abandon the effort altogether. Emails obtained through freedom of information requests have exposed how the effort was part of a political effort by anti-fossil fuel groups and wealthy foundations. Contrary to repeated claims by the Columbia School of Journalism and InsideClimate News about “editorial independence,” the financial backers of the reports used as an impetus for the investigation recently admitted they got what they paid for.
As the dwindling case stands today, all but two of the original “Green 20” have run for the hills, with only New York’s Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts’ Maura Healey carrying the torch for their wealthy donors and activist allies. Both have been subpoenaed (twice) by the U.S. House Science Committee to answer for their attempts to criminalize dissent on public policy, with which they have refused to comply. Both also await a federal court decision on whether they can proceed with their investigations.
Undeterred, Schneiderman recently tried to revive the failing campaign by revealing former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson had used a secondary email addresswhile serving at the helm of America’s largest oil and natural gas company. The company pointed out a curious component of Schneiderman’s tabloid journalism strategy: the New York Attorney General was aware of the issue as early as last year 2016, because the company had already produced emails containing the email address for his office.
Below is an abridged account of how the #ExxonKnew campaign continued its downward spiral over the past year two years.
It Was Always About Politics
Schneiderman launched his own investigation two three years ago after speaking to representatives of the Rockefeller Family Fund, the leading sponsors of the #ExxonKnew campaign. After getting his marching orders from wealthy liberal donors, Schneiderman began pulling together his team of Democratic AGs with the goal of legitimizing his case.
The other AGs, though they shared Schneiderman’s positions on climate policy, saw through his charade and began planning their hasty exits from his witch-hunt as soon as it began. The Iowa AG’s office called Schneiderman a “wild card” and tried to get out of attending the Al Gore press conference. Ultimately, the Iowa AG’s team decided they would have to “ride it through” before refusing to sign the coalition’s Common Interest Agreement, which spelled out a strategy for refusing to comply with public records request about the campaign.
The Virginia AG’s office, meanwhile, was “nervous” about joining the coalition and asked Schneiderman’s team to “dial that back one notch,” referring to language in the release for the Al Gore press conference. The Delaware AG’s office initially agreed to sign the Common Interest Agreement before suddenly pulling out at the last minute.
Numerous legal experts of all disciplines called out Schneiderman and his allies. Elizabeth Price Foley, a constitutional law professor at Florida International University College of Law, testified with a panel of other legal experts before the U.S. House Science Committee,
certain procedures of the investigation “an abuse of prosecutorial power.” Another expert, Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School, the AGs’ “arguments go too far” and “what they have done contravenes academic freedom and free speech.”
Indeed, Schneiderman’s and Healey’s allies even admit their investigation is pure politics. Former Maryland AG Douglas Gansler:{ spoke at a Center for American Progress }
:{ examining the AG investigation }:last year:{ two years ago, telling the crowd,}:
“The idea that AGs are politically motivated is an old one and a real one. Yes, they’re politically motivated in the sense that they are part of the political process; they have to run for office, they have to do what their constituents ask for, the voters that put them in office ask for, and there is no bigger issue that they ought to be thinking about and working on than climate change. And yes, that’s politically motivated. It’s good politics.” (emphasis added)
The “Green 20” have also been harshly criticized by their peers, who noted in a 2016 letter,
“We think this effort by our colleagues to police the global warming debate through the power of the subpoena is a grave mistake… Actions indicating that one side of the climate change debate should fear prosecution chills speech in violation of a formerly bi-partisan First Amendment consensus.” (emphasis added)
In addition to pursuing a partisan “inquisition,” Schneiderman has used his investigation as a fundraising vehicle, citing the case while soliciting donations from billionaire eco-activist Tom Steyer on at least two occasions. Schneiderman’s antics prompted the New York Post to run an editorial titled, “Eric Schneiderman should announce he’s running for governor or quit his politicking.”
A court filing by ExxonMobil released earlier this month last year lays bare the extent to which Schneiderman’s campaign is purely political. Schneiderman broke the New York Supreme Court’s rules by running to the press and filing a complaint in court before attempting to settle a dispute with ExxonMobil outside of court:
“Such an approach does not serve the productive resolution of discovery disputes, but it does serve the NYAG’s well-established preference to litigate his case in the press rather than court.”
Investigating the Investigators
In a twist, one year two years after the Al Gore press conference, it is now the AGs who are being forced to fend off investigations from a federal court and the House Science Committee.
A federal judge in Texas believes believed the AGs may have acted in “bad faith” when pursuing their investigation of Exxon and has issued a broad discovery order to determine whether “bias or prejudgment” influenced the AGs’ investigations. The discovery order has turned the tables on the AGs, allowing ExxonMobil to examine their internal documents which may reveal the extent of their collusion with environmental activist groups.
Tellingly, the judge cited the Al Gore press conference as the basis for his suspicion that the investigations of Exxon are politically motivated. When Healey’s lawyers tried to argue that her case wasn’t political, the judge shot back: “like Al Gore wasn’t frickin’ involved!”
Congress is also investigating the AGs, with the House Science Committee issuing subpoenas to the AGs last July two years ago and again this last February after they refused to comply last year with the original. “Instead of pursuing real threats to America, these attorneys general are going down a path of partisan politics and attacking people who disagree with their conclusions about climate change,” Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL), a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, said when the subpoenas were issued last year two years ago. “These individuals, scientists, and organizations have the right to conduct research, form their own opinions, and voice those opinions.”
Independent groups have also gotten involved, suing some of the AGs to force their compliance with public records laws. The Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is in court this week last year with Schneiderman, seeking emails his office exchanged with #ExxonKnew campaigners and funders.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), an early target of the AGs’ investigation, has also sued Schneiderman to get access to his documents related to the Exxon investigation. In Last November, a New York state judge ruled in favor of CEI, ordering Schneiderman to turn over the documents. The New York Post called it, “The disclosure that could end Eric Schneiderman’s career.”
Meanwhile, Schneiderman has continuously changed the rationale for his investigation in an endless search for something he can label as “fraud.” After rooting through millions of pages of Exxon’s documents and emails spanning some 40 years, he has yet to find any evidence of fraud. His “bombshell” finding thus far is former CEO Rex Tillerson’s alternate email address – a common practice among CEOs – and hardly the proof of climate fraud Schneiderman has so desperately sought.
One year Two years after the high point in his crusade, Eric Schneiderman finds himself in dire straits. It was a campaign designed to prosecute an oil and natural gas company, but the company he hoped to demonize just saw its former CEO confirmed as U.S. Secretary of State. His friends and allies have abandoned him, and he is being investigated by a federal court and the U.S. Congress.
---
---
One Year Later AGs United for Clean Power has Fallen Apart
- NEWS RELEASE
- Sam Kazman • 03/29/2017
- CEI LITIGATION
CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman commented on the one year anniversary of “AGs United for Clean Power,” a coalition of Attorneys General lead by New York AG Eric Schneiderman.
“It was one year ago today that NY AG Eric Schneiderman unveiled his coalition of Attorneys General United for Clean Power. While pretending that this was a law enforcement investigation, Schneiderman made clear that he was pushing a policy agenda—‘to defend the climate change progress made under President Obama and to push the next president for even more aggressive action.’
“Since then, Schneiderman’s coalition has fallen apart: most of its members have left, the subpoenas served on us and Exxon by Virgin Islands AG Claude Walker were quickly withdrawn, and the climate science debate that this gang tried to shut down is more energetic than ever. Ironically, nowhere is that better demonstrated than by yesterday’s environmental executive order from the president.”
See more about CEI’s legal victory against Attorney General Schneiderman here.
---
ggl 10 23
[### AG Paxton Leads Coalition of 11 AGs to Defend the First ...
Texas Attorney General (.gov)
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov › news › releases](https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-leads-coalition-11-ags-defend-first-amendment-climate-change-policy-debate)
---
September 09, 2016 | Amicus Brief
AG Paxton Leads Coalition of 11 AGs to Defend the First Amendment on Climate Change Policy Debate
Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an amicus brief yesterday in defense of the First Amendment. The brief explains that the Attorney General of Massachusetts exceeded her constitutional authority by attempting to shut down a viewpoint on an issue of scientific debate – climate change.
At the “AGs United for Clean Power” press conference, a coalition of liberal state attorneys general announced they were going to use their official authority to go after one side of the policy debate on climate change. This overt use of governmental power to shut down particular viewpoints is a blatant violation of the Constitution. In this case, the Massachusetts Attorney General issued a Civil Investigative Demand against Exxon Mobil Corporation for its “marketing and sale of fossil fuel-derived products and securities,” demanding over 40 years of internal company documents. Exxon is seeking to block the Civil Investigative Demand from being enforced.
Attorney General Paxton and ten other state attorneys general are asking the court to grant Exxon’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the subpoena.
“The Constitution was written to protect citizens from government witch-hunts that are nothing more than an attempt to suppress speech on an issue of public importance, just because a government official happens to disagree with that particular viewpoint,” Attorney General Paxton said when filing the brief.
In addition to Texas, the other states who joined the amicus brief are Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and Nevada.
Click here to view the Amicus Brief
:{:{IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:16-cv-00469-K ) MAURA TRACY HEALEY, ) Attorney General of Massachusetts, ) in her official capacity, ) ) Defendant. )}:
BRIEF OF TEXAS, LOUISIANA, SOUTH CAROLINA, ALABAMA, MICHIGAN, ARIZONA, WISCONSIN, NEBRASKA, OKLAHOMA, UTAH, AND NEVADA AS AMICI CURIAE}:
Attorney General of South Carolina
LUTHER STRANGE
Attorney General of Alabama
BILL SCHUETTE
Attorney General of Michigan
MARK BRNOVICH
Attorney General of Arizona
BRAD SCHIMEL
Attorney General of Wisconsin
DOUG PETERSON
Attorney General of Nebraska
SCOTT PRUITT
Attorney General of Oklahoma
SEAN REYES
Attorney General of Utah
ADAM LAXALT
Attorney General of Nevada
KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
---
Sep 9, 2016 — At the “AGs United for Clean Power” press conference, a coalition of liberal state attorneys general announced they were going to use their ...
[### AGs United for Clean Power Fail to Fulfill Their Mission The Maine Wire
https://www.themainewire.com › News](https://www.themainewire.com/2016/04/ags-united-clean-power-fail-fulfill-mission/)
Apr 20, 2016 — The first-of-its-kind coalition announced today is another key step on the path to a sustainable, clean energy future.” The group aims to “limit ...
[### "Green 20" AGs: What is it REALLY about?
The Federalist Society
https://fedsoc.org › commentary › fedsoc-blog › gree...](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/green-20-ags-what-is-it-really-about)
May 13, 2016 — ... general.html. [2] http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/02/al-gore-ny-attorney-general-launch-ags-united-for-clean-power-coalition/. [3] http://www ...
[### AGs United For Clean Power Press Conference* App. 002
Climate Litigation Watch
https://climatelitigationwatch.org › 2018/08](https://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/March-29-2016-AGs-Gore-presser-transcript.pdf)
Mar 29, 2016 — The following transcript of the AGs United For Clean Power Press Conference, held on March 29,. 2016, was prepared by counsel based on a ...
---