Skip to main content

View Diary: Fact Checking Josh Fox/Gasland #2; Oil/Gas Industry NOT Exempt from Clean Air/Clean Water Acts (133 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can you please explain exactly what statement (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam AZ

    you believe to be deceptive with some specificity?

    I actually fully expect these kinds of reactions because part of what I'm doing is trying to unplug the environmental movement from the Gasland conflation bubble and some people might find it unsettling that facts they believed to be facts base on the Gasland movie are not, in fact, actually considered as facts.

    •  Sure. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      julesrules39

      You wrote: "Contrary to Gasland claims, there is no exemption contained in the Federal Clean Water Act that is a categorical exemption of the oil and gas industry from jurisdiction under the Act for hydraulic fracturing process wastewater"

      Sure, there may be no "categorical exemption" but that's now the point is it? Despite Frackland's inexact use of language, any reasonable person knows he wasn't claiming that the entire gas and oil industry is exempt from all regulation. Be serious. You're using an obviously false interpretation of his words to make a dishonest straw-man argument. The facts are that the law restricts adequate enforcement of fracking, which makes the claim in Fox's movie 100x closer to the truth than your twisted claims.

      Hey, did the unions pay you well for their study in support of the Thoroughbred coal plant in Kentucky? It's clever how you list environmental clients at the top of your website but name polluters way down the list. Aren't you proud of the work you do for the fossil fuel industry?

      •  Claiming the oil and gas industry is exempt from (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adam AZ

        the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act as Gasland does is a claim of categorical exemption.

        There is no way for any reasonable person to understand that Josh Fox's claim that the oil and gas industry is exempted from the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act is anything but what Josh Fox claims it to be.

        Your claim:

        The facts are that the law restricts adequate enforcement of fracking, which makes the claim in Fox's movie 100x closer to the truth than your twisted claims.
        There isn't any provision of the Federal Clean Air Act that "restricts adequate enforcement of fracking."  Nothing of this nature exists in the Clean Air Act.  If you believe so strongly in the existence of such a provision, please provide a citation to the specific provision of the Clean Air Act that has the effect that you are claiming.  

        Similarly, no provision of the Clean Water Act exists that 'restricts adequate enforcement of fracking."   What you are talking about does not actually exist in the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharge of process wastewater without a permit.   If you wish to continue alleging this, please provide the specific citation to the specific provision of the Clean Water Act having the effect you are claiming.

      •  On the Thoroughbred Coal Plant (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adam AZ

        Here is my work product concerning the Thoroughbred Coal Plant which I did for the Owensboro Building and Construction Trades Council:

        http://www.sagady.com/...

        I am proud to have as clients union Democrats and union labor organizations who sometimes ask me to review environmental matters of facilities proposed for construction, such as air and water permits for new facilities.   I do a great deal of work for labor unions, particularly union pipefitters....like this:

        http://www.sagady.com/...

        These projects are examples where unions and their organizations ask me to prepare comments concerning
        air and water permits to ensure they actually comply with permitting requirements.

        Are you saying that unions are not supposed to care about environmental protection and environmental enforcement at facilities of interest to them?

        •  I'm saying (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          julesrules39

          that unions have a financial interest in promoting polluting projects that will provide their members jobs, and since you help them in their efforts, you have a financial interest in promoting those polluting projects as well.

          •  you continue to make bad assumptions about why (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam AZ

            a labor union would want to hire me to file the toughest, most adverse comments emphasizing air/water permitting rule enforcement that I could write in order to attack the issuance of an air quality permit or wastewater permit.

            You're not very perceptive about figuring out why a labor union would want me to do the things I do.   First, you did not perceive that comments that I write for filing are not something that a business applying for an air or water permit wants to have to deal with or address.   I've got a national reputation out there and no company wants to see me show up filing detailed technical comments on their air permit because it will always be trouble for them.  Here, for example, is a comment that recently helped squelch a refinery permit from
            being issued as proposed in Utah:

            http://www.sagady.com/...

            Do you have some kind of a problem with labor unions using environmental law against facilities and asking for tough enforcement of permitting requirements?

        •  And pipefitters unions (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          julesrules39

          expect to get many new jobs in the fracking industry. So maybe that explains your sympathies with your former and future clients who support fracking?

          •  There is an oil and gas industry (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam AZ

            There is not a "fracking" industry.  

            And union pipefitters don't always get the job, unfortunately and speaking as a Democrat.

            My past work for Democrats who are union members does not have anything at all to do with my statements about the oil and gas industry, with the preparation of these diaries and with my opinions about environmental control in the oil and gas industry.

            •  lol (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              julesrules39

              Your artistic use of deflection is almost impressive.

              Is your laughable claim that there's no "fracking" industry relevant to the fact that you have clients with a financial interest in fracking? No.

              Is the fact that union pipefitters don't always get the job relevant to your financial relationship with unions that promote fracking? No.

              This comment is the perfect example of how your red herring arguments on technicalities make your diary technically accurate while being essentially misleading.

              I'll restate the question in my other comment that you haven't gotten around to answering yet.

              Have regulatory agencies been given authority to regulate fracking in a way that will adequately protect drinking water supplies? You would be the first environmentalist I've encountered who thinks so.

      •  I'll resist using an HR for your claim that (0+ / 0-)

        Democrats who are union members and organizations are "polluters"

        •  So you believe (0+ / 0-)

          that when a union supports a major polluting project that it becomes non-polluting? Would that be through the process of magic fairy dust? Is that how you justify to yourself doing work for major polluting projects opposed by environmental groups? I've been a union member and organizer. I'm not intimidated by your bullshit.

          •  Have you ever heard of the Blue Green alliance? (0+ / 0-)

            do you know what an environment-labor coalition is?

            You, again, don't seem to be very perceptive, and in the case of the Thoroughbred coal plant that the Owensboro Building and Construction Trades Council and the Sierra Club were both on the same side in that case.

            •  So you're claiming (0+ / 0-)

              that all of your work for labor clients, including trades like the pipefitters that want more fracking, was to stop polluting projects?
              Keep in mind that I've already googled enough to know the answer.

              •  I don't care about what answer you "know" (0+ / 0-)

                I don't make any apologies or excuses as I am proud of all of the work I've done for my labor clients and your comments to try to tar and denigrate the entire movement of union pipefitters as "polluters" supporting "polluting projects" are
                reprehensible.

                •  More straw-man. (0+ / 0-)

                  And more deflection. I did not at any point denigrate the entire movement. I stated the indisputable fact that they at times support projects that would be major new sources of pollution and they support fracking in particular. Therefore, it's also a fact that you have clients with a financial interest in promoting fracking, which they frequently do. Making slanderous accusations about me hating unions does not change those facts.

        •  Do you believe that Keystone XL won't pollute? (0+ / 0-)

          It's supported by unions. Your position seems to be that union support makes it magically non-polluting.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (137)
  • Community (62)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Education (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Media (22)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Affordable Care Act (19)
  • Spam (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site