‘You Flew Here’: Dem AG Suing Exxon Struggles To Defend His Own Lawsuit On Live TV

Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta struggled to defend his own lawsuit against ExxonMobil during a Tuesday appearance on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

Bonta’s office filed suit against ExxonMobil on Monday, alleging that the corporation deceived the public about the efficacy of recycling plastics and specifically its “advanced recycling” program, which essentially breaks down old plastics into their molecular component parts that are then used to produce other products. During the interview, Bonta struggled to defend the merits of his lawsuit and was also called out by one of the program’s hosts for being hypocritical about jet fuel given that he seems to have flown into New York City for this week’s “Climate Week NYC” summit.

“They’re lying in different ways. They are saying that essentially, 100% of U.S. plastic could be recycled, and that was the myth they wanted to perpetuate,” Bonta said in response to questions from CNBC’s anchors.

After some more back and forth, Bonta continued to try to explain his lawsuit against ExxonMobil.

“Of all the plastics that ExxonMobil produces, from their product, only 1% goes into the advanced recycling process at all, and of that one percent, 92% becomes mostly transportation fuel,” Bonta said. “So the other 99% of what ExxonMobil produces in plastic and what the world produces in plastic, advanced recycling doesn’t touch.”

“But advanced recycling sounds like a better thing than nothing, than going into a landfill,” CNBC host Becky Quick interjected.

“They don’t get any credit for advanced recycling, turning things into jet fuel that’s emitted into the air or transportation fuel that becomes part of our …” Bonta fired back.

“So your point is we shouldn’t have jet fuel?” Quick said in response.

“My point is ExxonMobil shouldn’t lie. And they shouldn’t point to another lie —” Bonta said, before CNBC anchor Joe Kernen cut him off to point out the irony of Bonta railing against jet fuel after flying to New York City to partake in a climate summit attended by numerous business and political elites.

“You flew here though, right?” Kernen asked.

“We travel,” Bonta replied.

If Bonta flew roundtrip from Sacramento to New York City to appear at Climate Week, he would have flown approximately 5,000 miles and emitted about 2.26 metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to calculations done on Sustainable Travel

https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/24/dem-ag-exxon-struggles-defend-lawsuit/

*******************************************

Promote energy choice by protecting access to natural gas for homes and businesses

This November, Washington voters will decide if consumer energy choices deserve protection. Over the course of the last year, Washington state bureaucrats and elected officials have followed the climate posturing of high-cost energy states, by banning natural gas in future builds and pushing for grid electrification for existing natural gas users. Washington Initiative 2066 is the response to this government-created restriction on consumer energy choices, reversing the natural gas bans and prohibiting any and all future energy restrictions.

There are currently only seven states plus Washington, D.C. with jurisdictions restricting natural gas use in new construction. Washington state is one of these regions with restrictions on natural gas. On the other hand, over half of the states in the country have placed preemptive measures in place prohibiting any natural gas bans by local or state jurisdictions. Regional neighbors of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have all voted to prohibit these local bans on natural gas.

On Sept. 15, 2023, Washington’s State Building Code Council (SBCC) adopted new natural gas restrictions which ignored federal law and restricted consumer energy choices. The code removed the mandate for heat pump adoption but created credit incentives that would be so cost-prohibitive to natural gas it would deter its usage in new homes. The SBCC voted to delay the code implementation until after the following session.

Washington Policy Center (WPC) has actively participated in the critique of these codes and their failure to follow the regulatory codes, which call for economic impact reports to small businesses. WPC has petitioned both the SBCC council and the governor to ensure the economic impact of the new codes is addressed. The requests were denied.

The trouble continued during the latest 2024 session, when the Washington legislature passed House Bill 1589. Lt. Gov. Denny Heck said of the draft form of the house bill submitted to the Senate, “There is no other way of saying this clearly, the president is troubled by this legislation. The drafting and construction of this bill is very simply a hot mess.” The bill unconstitutionally avoided identifying what existing legislation would be affected if enacted, essentially a blank check of regulatory oversight and energy limitations on consumers.

The bill was partially revised but remained very ambiguous on many details.

The ballot summary for Initiative Measure No. 2066 says: “This measure would require utilities and local governments to provide natural gas to eligible customers, prevent state approval of rate plans requiring or incentivizing gas service termination, restricting access to gas service, or making it cost-prohibitive; and prohibit the state energy code, localities, and air pollution control agencies from penalizing gas use. It would repeal sections of chapter 351, Laws of 2024, including planning requirements for cost-effective electrification and prohibitions on gas rebates and incentives.”

Even if Washington state moves forward on limiting natural gas bans on the consumers, the state's reliance on natural gas electricity is likely to remain the same for some time. Currently, Washington is one of the lowest consumers of natural gas-fired electricity, but banning natural gas use at the consumer level will not alter the state’s energy profile.

Washington has already diversified its electricity grid with one of the highest rates of renewable power in the country. The state is unlikely to fully wean off of natural gas-fired electricity nor should it from a diversification and reliability standpoint. However, the state’s recent rules and legislation limit consumer choices, while still permitting choice for electrical providers, based on cost, supply, and weather.

Natural gas bans argue electrification is justified because of efficiency gains. Anyone who has used a gas oven can attest through simple qualitative experience that the gas oven is more efficient. It is assumed in the restaurant business that there is a 40% loss in productivity if using an electric stove. Even the California Energy Commission argues that a gas stove will cost less to operate and take less energy to produce and deliver heat to your stove.

Ability to pay is always a better determinant of adoption over efficiency gains and environmental impact. Leaving consumers free to make their energy choices, allows them to judge what will be most affordable in the long run.

Consumers know the most about what they like, need, and can afford. Climate ideologies turned government regulations interfere with consumer preferences, causing economic and physical harm to consumers, while rarely meeting any climate-centered goal. Natural gas bans often disguised as ‘grid electrification’ are policy directives with imagined benefits and real-world harm.

Limiting energy options endangers the financial well-being of consumers and prioritizes government grandstanding over individual liberty. Natural gas bans are not good policy and should be prohibited because market drivers will encourage consumers to adopt greener and more economical energy choices while leaving them free to choose the energy that fits their needs, budgets, and priorities best.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_0d272560-7a8f-11ef-895f-43e9c6733cfa.html

*******************************************

Opponents rally to stop carbon capture projects near water supplies in Illinois

There is growing opposition to carbon capture projects that some say threaten drinking water supplies in Illinois.

A new Illinois law requires corporations to provide an alternative drinking source if it becomes contaminated from the injection and storage of CO2. But Pan Rickert, with Eco-Justice Collaborative, said there is one issue that wasn’t addressed in the legislation which is sole source aquifers like the Mahomet that supplies water to nearly a million people in over a dozen counties.

“Developers have to replace water that is contaminated, and if it would be under the Mahomet Aquifer, there is no readily available supply of water to become an alternative water source,” said Rickert. “It doesn’t exist without a huge economic impact.”

Rickert adds that the aquifer serves over 100 communities, businesses, and farmers throughout central Illinois and is vital to the economy.

Rickert’s group released poll results that showed 82% of Illinois registered voters say they oppose private corporations' use of eminent domain for their private carbon dioxide pipeline and sequestration projects, and 89% think carbon capture and storage poses a serious risk of carbon dioxide leaks, potentially at lethal levels.

"A private corporation should not be allowed to take our property by eminent domain for a project that could damage our land, and be routed close enough to our homes and schools to put our lives in danger,” said Kathy Campbell, vice president of Citizens Against Heartland Greenwashing projects.

According to the Illinois Prairie Rivers Network, three carbon capture projects are proposing to inject carbon through the aquifer and store it underneath.

Opponents are pointing to a Sept. 13 incident in Decatur. E&E News reported that corrosion in one of Archer Daniels-Midland Co.’s carbon sequestration wells allowed carbon dioxide to leak.

“This incident demonstrates how important strict CCS regulations are to protect our communities and environment, and is exactly why we passed the CCS protections act in Illinois this year,” said the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition in a statement.

State Sen. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, said he has filed legislation that needs to be passed immediately he said would protect the aquifer from CO2 injection.

“This is exactly what I was sounding the alarm about back in May when Democrats were ramming through their supposedly ‘green’ Carbon Sequestration bill,” said Rose. “This is exactly why that bill should not have passed, why Governor Pritzker should never have signed that bill.”

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_b9bef798-7522-11ef-8e63-23dc5b861865.html

***************************************

Australian government grants extension to three coal mines

A decision by the federal government to extend three coal mines is in line with climate laws, the environment minister says, despite concerns the move undermines credibility in tackling rising emissions.

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek signed off on Tuesday to extensions to two coal mines in the NSW Hunter Valley and another in the state's north-west.

Ms Plibersek said the decision was consistent with environmental laws.

"The Albanese government has to make decisions in accordance with the facts and the national environmental law, that's what happened on every project and that's what's happened here," she said in a statement.

"The government will continue to consider each project on a case-by-case basis, under the law. These are not new projects, these three approvals are all extensions of existing operations."

The decisions relate to coal producer Whitehaven's Narrabri underground mine's stage three expansion project, Ashton Coal's Ravensworth mine and Mach Energy's Mount Pleasant optimisation project.

It's expected emissions from the extensions meet the threshold under the federal government's safeguard mechanism, which aims at reducing emissions from large industrial sites.

"The emissions from these projects will be considered by (Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen) under the government's strong climate laws that were supported by the Greens political party and independents.

But Greens leader Adam Bandt said the decision damaged the government's standing on climate action. "(The decision is) a betrayal of our environment, the science and everyone who voted for climate action," he said on social media. "If Labor every gave a damn about the climate crisis, they don't now."

Climate program manager at the Australian Conservation Foundation Gavan McFadzean said the move was a backwards step.

"It is grossly irresponsible to be approving coal mines when global scientists and the International Energy Agency have repeated calls for no new coal and gas projects if we have any chance of having a safe climate," he said.

"These approvals will have consequences for everyday Australians who are forced to live on the forefront of climate damage."

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/government-grants-extension-to-three-coal-mines/ar-AA1r6KWv

***************************************

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH -- new site)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************