The EPA: A leftist agenda
The actions of the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency long have made its extremism clear. But speaking just as loudly about how fully the far left has co-opted the EPA are its own words — in newly revealed emails that show the agency collaborating extensively with radical environmentalists.
The Energy and Environment Legal Institute obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The Washington Free Beacon reports they show the EPA coordinating with groups that would do away with fossil fuels entirely — in messaging, in petition drives held at agency events and regarding agency rulemaking, in official agency statements and even in pressuring executives of Colorado natural gas utility Xcel Energy.
The EPA followed the lead of the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups by siting hearings on a rule making new coal-fired power plants practically impossible far from coal country. Emails also show the EPA lied publicly about that rule's intent and effects.
And all these emails surfaced just weeks after an EPA inspector general's report whitewashed agency coordination with extremists regarding action against natural gas giant Range Resources — despite clear evidence to the contrary.
The picture that emerges is not of an EPA merely conscripted by the far left to advance extremists' radical political agenda, but of an EPA that is the far left.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Mon-Yough Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Pennsylvania edu-crock: What a mess
- U.N. Watch: Corruption’s platform
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Keep asking questions
- The Thursday wrap
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- U.N. Watch: The Saudi fix
- A House in disorder: Words to consider