We knew that
President Obama was planning to fundamentally transform America,
but even many of his initial supporters have been shocked as his true
intentions have been revealed. Following his November 2012 reelection, his
administration has removed any pretense of representing the majority of Americans
and has pursued his ideological agenda with wild abandon—leaving many of us
feeling incapacitated; thrown to the curb as it speeds by.
His legacy
climate-change agenda is at the core of the rapid-fire regulations and the
disregard for any speed bump the courts may place in front of the
administration. When the Supreme Court smacked it down for failing to consider
economic impacts of the mercury and air toxics standards for power plants, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responded with a
shrug, as their goal had essentially already been met. On August 27,
a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction—blocking EPA and the Army Corps
of Engineers from enforcing the Waters of the United States rule in the
thirteen states that requested the injunction. The response? The Hill reports:
“the Obama administration says it will largely enforce the regulation as
planned.”
Having failed to
push the unpopular policies through Congress, the administration has resorted
to regulatory overreach—and assembled a campaign to use friendly governors and
state attorney general offices, in collaboration with pressure groups and
ideologically aligned benefactors, to advance the agenda.
The White House
knows that the public is not with them. While polls show that slightly more than half
of the American public believe the “effects of global warming are already
happening,” it repeatedly comes in at the bottom of the list
of priorities on which we think Obama and Congress should focus. The
President’s pet policy fares even worse when pollsters ask if Americans agree:
“government should do more to curb climate change, even at the expense of
economic growth?” Only 12 percent “strongly agree.” Additionally, the very age
group—young voters—that
helped propel Obama into the Oval Office, is the group least convinced that
climate change is a reality and the least “likely to support government funding
for climate change solutions.”
It is, presumably,
for this reason that a scheme hatched by now-disgraced former Oregon Governor
Kitzhaber’s highest-paid aide Dan Carol—“a former Democratic opposition
researcher,” who, according
to the Oregonian, “worked on behalf of Bill Clinton and Barack
Obama”—received an enthusiastic response from the White House and its allies.
Remember, Kitzhaber resigned from office on February 13, 2015, amid allegations
of criminal wrongdoing for the role his fiancée, Cylvia Hayes, held in his
office and whether she used that role to obtain private consulting work
promoting the climate agenda. Carol, who was paid close to double Kitzhaber’s
salary, according to a new report
from Energy & Environment Legal Institute,
left his public position “after appearing to have too closely intertwined
government and the tax-payer dependent ‘clean energy’ industry with interest
group lobbies.”
The goal of what
was originally called “Dan’s concept” was to bring about a “coalescence of
private financial and ideological interests with public offices to advance the
officeholders’ agenda and political aspiration”—more specifically: “to bring
the Obama Administration’s plans to reality and to protect them.”
This was done,
according to dozens of emails
obtained through federal and state open record laws, “through a coordinated
campaign of parallel advocacy to support close coordination of public offices”
and involved a “political operation with outside staff funded by some of the
biggest names in left-liberal foundation giving,” including, according to the
emails, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, the Rockefeller Brothers, and the
Hewlett Foundation. The first emails in the scandal began in mid-2013.
Kitzhaber wasn’t
the only governor involved—he’s just the only one, so far, to resign. Many
Democrat governors and their staff supported the scheme. You’d expect that
California’s Governor Jerry Brown or Virginia’s Terry McAuliffe are part of the
plan—called, among other names, the Governors Climate Compact—as they are avid
supporters of the President’s climate-change initiatives. What is surprising is
Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear’s “quiet engagement.” He decried Obama’s Clean
Power Plan (Final rule announced on August 3, 2015), as being “disastrous” for
Kentucky. In a statement about the Plan, he said: “I
have remained steadfast in my support of Kentucky’s important coal and
manufacturing industries, and the affordable energy and good jobs they provide
the Commonwealth and the nation.” Yet, he isn’t opposing the rule and emails
show that he is part of the “core group of governors quietly working to promote
the climate agenda.”
In response to the
records request, Beshear’s office “asserts that ‘no records’ exist in its files
involving the Steyer campaign.” The E&E Legal report continues: “Numerous
emails from other governors copying a senior Beshear aide on her official
account, emails which Beshear’s office surely possesses, unless it has chosen
to destroy politically damaging emails.” An email bearing that aide’s name,
Rebecca Byers, includes Kentucky as one of the states “that can’t commit to the
GCC [Governors Climate Compact] publicly now but would welcome quiet
engagement.”
Other states
indicated in the emails include Minnesota, Rhode Island, Illinois, Connecticut,
California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Delaware, Maryland,
Colorado, New York, Vermont, and Virginia. Three newly elected Republican
Governors have been targeted by the campaign—Larry Hogan (MD), Charlie Baker
(MA), and Bruce Rauner (IL). Reelected Republican Governor Rick Snyder (MI) has
apparently
joined the “core group.”
I’ve read the
entire report—which had me holding my breath as if I were reading a spy
thriller—and reviewed the emails.
The amount of
coordination involved in the multi-state plan is shocking. The amount of money
involved is staggering—a six-month budget of $1,030,00 for the orchestrators
and multi-state director and $180,000 to a group to produce a paper supporting
the plan’s claims. And, as the 55-page report points out, this collection of
emails is in no way complete. At the conclusion of the executive summary:
“Context and common sense indicate that the emails E&E Legal obtained and
detail in this report do not represent all relevant correspondence pulling
together the scheme they describe. Public records laws extend to those records
created, sent or received by public servants; private sector correspondence is
only captured when copying public offices, with the caveat that most of the
White House is exempt. Further, however, the records we have obtained reflect
more than the time and other parameters of our requests; they are also a
function of the thoroughness of offices’ responses, the willingness of former
and current staff to search nonofficial accounts, and even several stonewalls
as noted in the following pages.”
The E&E Legal
report was of particular interest to me in that it followed the theme of my
extensive coverage of Obama’s
green-energy crony-corruption scandal. Many of the same names, with
which I’d become familiar, popped up over and over again: Terry McAuliffe—who
received government funding for his failed electric car enterprise; Cathy
Zoe—who worked for the Department of Energy, and, of course, John Podesta—who
ran the Center for American Progress and who helped write the 2009 Stimulus
Bill, and who then became a “senior advisor” to President Obama and is
presently campaign manager for Hillary Clinton.
It also caught my
attention because little more than a month ago—perhaps with a hint that this
report was forthcoming—the HuffPost published a story claiming
that groups like mine were part of a “secret network of fossil fuel and utility
backed groups working to stop clean energy.” Calling me—along with others—out
by name, the author states: “The strategy of creating and funding many
different organizations and front groups provides an artificial chorus of
voices united behind eliminating or weakening renewable energy laws.” He
concludes that the attacks “are the result of coordinated, national campaigns
orchestrated by utilities and fossil fuel companies through their trade
associations and front groups.”
Oh, how I wish we
were that well-coordinated and funded. If we were, I would have written this
column last week when the E&E Legal report was released. Instead of
receiving the information from the source, a New York City journalist forwarded
it to me.
Yes, I am part of a
loosely affiliated network of people who share similar concerns. Once a year, I
meet with a group of private citizens and activists over property rights
issues. I am on an email list of individuals and groups opposing wind
turbines—often for different reasons. I have a cadre of scientists I’ve met at
different meetings upon whom I do call for their varied expertise. Individuals
often email me tips and news stories. True, most of the folks on my nearly
5000-person email distribution list are part of the energy industry—though
there are plenty of concerned citizens, too. In 2014, the average donation to
my organization was under $500.
Imagine what we
could do with the same amount of money and coordination the E&E Legal
report revealed—after all we have the public on our side—average citizens whose
utility bills are going up by double digits
due to the policies espoused by President Obama and his politically connected
allies who benefit from American’s tax dollars.
I hope you’ll join
our chorus—you can subscribe
and/or contribute to my efforts.
We are not working in the shadows and are, in fact, proud of our efforts on
behalf of all Americans, their jobs, and energy that is effective, efficient,
and economical.
If this small—but
organized and well-funded—group pushing Obama’s agenda were allowed to run
rampant, without the roadblocks little pockets of opposition (like my group)
erect though public education and exposure of the facts (such this E&E
legal report), it is scary to think about where America would be today. Remember,
you are either part of the problem or part of the solution.
The author of Energy Freedom,
Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc.
and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy
(CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for
Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.
Follow her @EnergyRabbit.
No comments:
Post a Comment