By Steve Haner
It was disappointing to the see the Richmond Times-Dispatch stoop to a weak ad hominem argument on its front page May 6, seeking to discredit a legal challenge to the Dominion Energy Virginia wind project by labeling the plaintiffs as “climate deniers” and defenders of tobacco.
The challenge to the federal permits for the wind project is based on some of the same laws and precedents used to challenge (and successfully delay) the Mountain Valley Pipeline in Southwest Virginia. The Biden Administration is pushing construction of thousands of ocean wind turbines in the migratory path of an endangered whale species. The Endangered Species Act requires their careful protection and lawsuits are filed under its provisions all the time.
Yet the first thing reporter David Ress and his editors thought it important to mention was that the plaintiffs “challenge Biden administration climate policy as climate change alarmism.” Deeper into the story he details some of their skeptical statements on the issue, and in the case of one group even brings up statements about tobacco.
Of what possible relevance to turbine permitting is the Heartland Institute’s views on tobacco regulation? Oh, I guess if Heartland is not convinced tobacco kills people, that would explain why it is also not convinced the climate catastrophe is killing people. The problem is a quick visit to Heartland’s website reveals it does consider smoking a health hazard and it is pushing non-tobacco vape alternatives as providing “harm reduction.” So it recognizes harm after all.
There is some actual news about the lawsuit, which Ress all but ignored but which explains why the newspaper chose now to attack the plaintiffs. A federal judge in Washington has taken up the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction, with some deadlines for information and briefs building up to a key hearing later this week. Reports that she ruled for the plaintiffs were premature, but she also didn’t rule for the company or the Biden Administration. Continue reading