Throughout her campaign, Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has made dismantling the oil and natural gas sector a hallmark of her policy agenda.
She’s a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal and has said that she’ll immediately ban fracking if elected president.
Now Warren is out with a new plan that would toss out the First Amendment so she could prosecute the corporate leaders of energy companies.
Her scheme would eliminate free speech rights and put the federal government in charge of deciding which scientific research is permissible.
Warren wants to ban companies from conducting and publishing research on energy and environmental matters that she doesn’t like.
In fact, she wants to go as far as introducing a “corporate perjury” law that would fine and jail executives who oversee the work she opposes.
This would apply to companies that “lie” to federal agencies, Congress, courts, or shareholders. Of course, scientific research is constantly evolving as we gain a better understanding of our world.
So, do we really want Elizabeth Warren (or any politician for that matter) to have the power to imprison private citizens for publishing research they don’t like?
Furthermore, would Warren apply this law to anti-energy activist groups who constantly publish fear-mongering research (which also isn’t peer-reviewed) aimed at destroying oil and gas companies?
The federal government deciding who is qualified to speak puts the country on a dangerous path and undermines the First Amendment.
Of course, Warren should already be aware of this fact since she’s already expressed outrage just last week at Twitter’s policy of banning political ads from environmental groups. Whether it’s scientific research or political ads, government regulation of speech always seems to backfire.
Climate Litigation Falls Flat On Its Face
The cornerstone of the Warren plan is built on the successful prosecution of energy companies in court. But as we saw just last week in New York, these contrived lawsuits aren’t actually built on the law, they’re developed as punitive measures to punish private companies.
In their case against ExxonMobil, the New York Attorney General office was forced to drop two of its four fraud counts against the energy company because they simply couldn’t prove anything.
And that was after Attorney General’s case was initially scaled back to an accounting matter after three years of investigation failed to produce any evidence to support the original “Exxon Knew” allegations.
With Warren’s anti-free speech plan specifically citing “Exxon Knew,” she might want to take notice that the entire effort has fallen flat on its face before she uses it as an example to support her plan.
Thankfully, some Democratic elected leaders have rejected the climate litigation strategy like Colorado Attorney General Phil Wiser who has said he’s “unconvinced” by these lawsuits and said it’s actually very unhelpful in addressing climate change.
Warren’s Out-of-Touch Anti-Energy Agenda
Unfortunately, this anti-free speech plan from Warren is only the latest proposal in her out-of-touch anti-energy agenda.
Warren wants to ban oil and gas development on public lands despite the fact these royalties are crucial for western states to fund public services like education.
On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere.
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) September 6, 2019
Unfortunately, that idea and her plan to ban fracking have been adopted by fellow presidential contenders Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker.
And like Warren, Sanders even wants to jail energy executives (but isn’t quite sure what laws they have broken).
Banning fracking and supporting completely unrealistic plans like the Green New Deal would have horrible consequences for the economy and American foreign policy.
These policies would dramatically cut into GDP growth, undermine American energy security and diplomacy, raise prices for consumers, and actually cause an increase in carbon emissions.
Daniel Yergin, the vice-chairman of IHS Markit and founder of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, and one of the foremost energy experts blasted Warren’s agenda:
“The notion just to say I’m going to stop fracking, it is like this all-encompassing term — what are you talking about? I mean really, what are you talking about? In the U.S., oil production is primarily regulated by the states but there is so much that the federal government can do with a thousand cuts of regulation and so forth … and to just say she’s against fracking shows a total lack of understanding.”
Warren’s plans might play well in a Democratic primary debate but could run into serious trouble in the general election as Axios reports that voters in swing states don’t support banning fracking.
Read more at EID Climate
At a time we desperately need a well informed, thoughtful energy TRANSITION debate, Ms. Warren (and others) seeks to ELIMINATE most of the REAL expertise in this critical arena from the discussion. You cannot have sensible government policy if you are not getting the right inputs & information. Classic garbage in, garbage out. Eventually, that short-sighted approach & lack of vision will have very NEGATIVE consequences. You’ll MISS fossil fuels when they are gone…
The Liberal Democrats partners in crime with the Eco-Nazis/Watermelons and financed by liberal special interests Eco-Freak groups and the Russians
Warren’s statements show that the liberals pose a threat to the freedoms that this nation has cherished for generations. Fortunately not even a Supreme Court more liberal than our current one would tolerate what Warren wants to do. The founders of our nation were very wise when they wrote the Constitution.
If people where jailed for lying, those who should be incarcerated would be people making claims that extreme weather events are increasing, sea level is rising rapidly, and many under claims. Consider NOAA in their altering the temperature data on the winder of 2017 to make it look like a normal year, or altering temperature data to lower temperatures before 1950 and raise them after that year.
Banning companies or anyone else from conducting and publishing research on energy and environmental matters that she doesn’t like would definitely make our government totalitarian.
She’s hard on the Bill of Rights. So far, her proposal’s have seriously trashed the first, second and fourth amendments.
Oil companies have LOTS of qualified scientists, engineers, environmental professionals and lawyers that are routinely drawn upon for their technical & legal expertise in various matters. Very much UNLIKE most of the environmental activists groups. So, I’d agree that if the industry is to be “muzzled,” then the same standard certainly needs to apply to the Sierra Club, et al.
As to a fracing ban, it is DUBIOUS (at best) that this is within the scope of presidential authority, for numerous reasons. Remember one thing. Over 80% of our domestic oil & gas is produced on PRIVATE land. If anyone reading this thinks these environmental activists are FANATICS, just wait until you try to (effectively) condemn all those private mineral rights with the nationwide suspension of oil & gas drilling operations…
A typical Liberal Democrat wants to put America into depending upon OPEC for our fossil fuels you can bet the Eco-Nazis/Watermelons will be putting all their money on the Lizard Lady her kind no no barriers for their plans she rely belongs in prison with a lot of other dirty democrats who bend to the demands of the Eco-Freaks