New York Atty. Gen. Eric Schneiderman has changed course in his crusade to cleanse the republic of free speech.
Schneiderman led the group of 17 state AGs who in March launched a subpoena siege against organizations, including ExxonMobil and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), doubtful about the need for sacrificial climate remedies.
Because democracies tend to clean their own gutters, Schneiderman's attempt to punish political disagreement is unraveling.
CEI defeated the witch hunt that came its way via the Virgin Islands and has sued to learn which groups backed the effort.
Meanwhile, at least a few erstwhile supporters have decided that usurpation of democratic processes looks bad on AG resumes.
So Schneiderman is regrouping.
Initially, he suggested ExxonMobil opposed costly precaution while fully aware of the supposed perils of climate change.
This is absurd. Certitude essential to the assertion doesn't exist. Activists insisting otherwise are wrong.
Now, Schneiderman is investigating not what ExxonMobil knew and when it knew it but what the company tells shareholders about climate-related risks.
The company might have to leave oil and gas in the ground, he told the New York Times last month. It might be overstating the value of reserves. That might represent fraud.
Nonsense. Reserves values, like climate science, are inherently uncertain. That's why companies assess them every year.
"If, collectively, the fossil fuel companies are overstating their assets by trillions of dollars, that's a big deal," Schneiderman told the Times. He obviously doesn't know that the only values related to reserves on oil-company balance sheets, where assets appear, are capitalized development costs.
Schneiderman also doesn't account for a scenario far more probable than his speculation about stranded assets.
That's the political backlash sure to replace indifference of the moment when remediation costs slam energy consumers.
Then the movement fizzles, as it's doing at the popular level in much of Europe, and what proves to have been fraudulent is expansionist regulation imposed before voters understood what was happening.
That's really a big deal.
(From the subscription area of www.ogj.com, posted Sept. 2, 2016; author's e-mail: [email protected])