ShareThis Page
Climate of silence: ‘Secret pact’ |

Climate of silence: ‘Secret pact’

Those progressive attorneys general targeting skeptics of man-made climate change are, themselves, the subject of controversy over a “secret pact,” which has led to open-records lawsuits against some of them.

The Energy and Environment Legal Institute and Free Market Environmental Law Clinic are suing the office of Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin to release records relating to an agreement to shield certain information by the AGs United for Clean Power. Lawsuits also have been filed against AGs in New York and Vermont.

Mr. Kilmartin’s representative, along with reps for 16 other AGs, signed off on a “Climate Change Conference Common Interest Agreement,” under which the AGs acknowledge “common legal interests” regarding climate change and agree not to disclose certain information, according to The Daily Signal.

Kilmartin’s office dismisses the lawsuit as a “politically motivated filing.” The Energy and Environment Legal Institute says otherwise: The common interest agreement was “clearly drafted to obstruct open-records requests while these AGs carried out a political campaign against their critics.”

As such, the agreement is not privileged. But aside from any open-record violations is the cost of renewable energy mandates for states represented by the crusading AGs.

If everything’s above board, then the attorneys general should have nothing to hide.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.