In a letter drafted by thirteen of the nation’s state attorneys general, it was suggested that if the fossil fuel industry should be prosecuted for fraud for allegedly downplaying the risks of global warming, then climate alarmists in the “clean energy” industry should also be prosecuted for fraud for exaggerating the risks.
Climate alarmists in the so-called “clean energy” industry exaggerate the risks of global warming for their own financial gain. None of their dire, apocalyptic predictions have come true, much to their own dismay. Yet, we’re supposed to believe them.
New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and California Attorney General Kamala Harris have also reportedly launched probes.
The attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands Claude Walker issued a subpoena in March demanding all communications between Exxon Mobil and some 90 different conservative and libertarian organizations and think tanks.
Also in March, 17 attorneys general – 16 Democrats and one Independent – gathered at a conference where they announced they had formed the coalition “AGs United for Clean Power.”
According to the GOP AGs who drafted a letter addressed to AGs United for Clean Power, the very name of the group shows a conflict of interest. Not only is this coalition targeting a certain sector of the energy industry – fossil fuel corporations such as Exxon Mobil – but they are also siding with their targets’ competitors, namely solar and wind corporations. In addition, the lawsuit initiated by these Democrat AGs pertains to a matter of public policy. It’s not something that should be handled by law enforcement.
The letter pointed out that while the media have been happy to lead the charge in raising questions about “whether fossil fuel companies misled investors and the public on the impact of climate change on their businesses,” no one really is asking the same question to the corporations and lobbyists who espouse a climate alarmist viewpoint.
The letter stated, in part:
“…[I]t has been asserted that “fossil fuel companies” may have funded non- profits who minimized the risks of climate change. Does anyone doubt that “clean energy” companies have funded non-profits who exaggerated the risks of climate change? Under the stated theory for fraud, consumers and investors could suffer harm from misstatements by all energy-market participants and the non-profits they support. Yet only companies and non-profits allegedly espousing a particular viewpoint have been chosen for investigation.”
I think these are all fair questions. Surely, this is a situation that works both ways. If one (alleged) extreme counts as fraud and is prosecutable, then the other extreme should be equally counted as fraud and should be prosecuted. The letter concluded:
“Even in the press conference, a senior partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (“Kleiner Perkins”) identified “man- made global warming pollution” as “the reason” for 2015 temperatures, the spread of Zika, flooding in Louisiana and Arkansas, Super Storm Sandy, and Super Typhoon Haiyan. Some evidence may support these statements. Other evidence may refute them. Do these statements increase the value of clean energy investments offered for sale by Kleiner Perkins? Should these statements justify an investigation into all contributions to environmental non-profits by Kleiner Perkins’s partners? Should these questions be settled by our state courts under penalty of RICO charges? May it never be. As Justice Jackson noted, our “forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.”… We write to urge our colleagues to choose the second, and far superior, solution. Stop policing viewpoints.”
Read the full letter here.