Government agency representatives meeting with advocacy groups of all political sides is a normal practice within the US federal regulatory system. Ex parte communications for information exchange are certainly allowed under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and can be productive for both parties if done in the right manner. Concern about “transparency” is a red herring because any and all conversations of such meetings must be documented and placed in the corresponding regulatory docket.
It is disingenuous if an advocacy group from one political side, when invited refuses to meet with EPA officials, and then later complains that groups opposing their position are meeting with the EPA officials.
These same environmental advocacy groups used similar tactics in the 1980s and 1990s where these groups filed lawsuits to drive much of EPA regulatory activity through court orders.
“An environmental group declined an offer to meet with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt in 2017 over concerns the meeting would not be “transparent,” E&E News reports.” click here
Christianophobia = an irrational animosity towards or hatred of Christians, or Christianity in general. (McMillan Dictionary)
“The article relies heavily on Iliff School of Theology sociology professor Antony Alumkal, whose book Paranoid Science Owens asserts “charts the long and complicated relationship between science and the American Christian evangelical movement, examining the intra-religious tensions that have accompanied various strands of science denial, including the intelligent design and anti-environmental movements.”
Expanding on this, Owens falsely claims “far-right American evangelicals have been responsible for some of the most radical opposition to scientific positions regarding topics such as climate change and evolution, working in close tandem with secular free-market idealogues.” [sic]” click here
“How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey.” click here
“The movement has now made the pages of the New York Times in a friendly story about a lawyer and an environmentalist group seeking to represent the Colorado River in a lawsuit.” click here
What’s wrong with this picture (or table) below? The top “green” country has zero wastewater treatment. Carbon dioxide emissions could certainly be lowered if all wastewater treatment plants were shut down. This assessment (click here) completely ignores other aspects of the environment and quality of life. But there’s more below….
Let’s consider the economy. Where do these countries fall on the graph below? How would they rank using measures of quality of life? Apparently, to be a “green” country is to be a poorer, polluted country.
“This is his account of his personal journey of discovery that concluded that the claims are based on invalid science and are being pushed by a far left wing conspiracy that tolerates no skepticism, that their “solution” will result in disastrous price increases and reduced reliability for electricity in the US, as it already has in Western Europe, and reductions in economic growth and living standards around the world, particularly for the less affluent.” click here