News

As questions continue to mount about the propriety and legality of the activist-led campaign to get Democratic officeholders to prosecute groups and companies with which they disagree on climate issues, one of the primary spokesmen for that effort on Capitol Hill took to the Senate floor today. To hear U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) tell it, the only folks who are raising any issues or concerns about the strategy are a bunch of right-wing “denial” groups and the industry itself. To wit:

“There are obvious similarities between the fossil fuel industries’ denial of its products’ climate effects and the tobacco industries’ denial of its products’ health effects. These similarities are sufficient that a proper inquiry should be made about pursuing a civil lawsuit … I have made that suggestion and wow did that set off an outburst.  The right wing climate denial outfits and the fossil fuel industry mouthpieces went into high gear.”

Left unmentioned, of course, is that a number of big and important media institutions and commentators have also pushed back on the campaign. Here, for the benefit of Sen. Whitehouse and others, is a quick (and inexhaustive) list:

Editorial Boards

Financial Times: Legal basis for AG investigation is flimsy, free speech implications are alarming. “The investigations launched by the attorney-generals of some US states and the Virgin Islands set a troubling precedent for other policy debates, and threaten to undermine the cause that they aim to support…The legal basis for these actions seems flimsy…Beyond that, the implications of the investigations for free speech on public policy issues are alarming. Everyone ought to be able to take part in policy debates without worrying that their opponents will be able to use the law to go on fishing expeditions through their private communications, looking for embarrassing tit-bits that can be used against them…Climate change campaigners argue the seriousness of the issue means extreme measures are warranted, but the exact opposite is the case. It is precisely because the stakes are so high that all arguments must be heard. The actions by the attorney-generals can only degrade the quality of that debate.” (Editorial, View Full Article