 There are two attorney generals, state attorney generals investigating ExxonMobil's role in hiding climate science. There is an attorney general from Oklahoma who Trump has nominated to be the new EPA administrator. His name is Scott Pruitt. Who is Scott Pruitt and what has he done for or against ExxonMobil as attorney general of Oklahoma? As he said, he is the attorney general of Oklahoma. He has been nominated by Trump to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Protection is not exactly something that he is known for. He has sued the EPA a number of times in his career as AG of Oklahoma. In regards to ExxonMobil, as AG, he has gotten a number of campaign donations from the oil and gas industry, including more than $6,000 from ExxonMobil specifically. He wrote a letter defending ExxonMobil against these charges that they had funded fraudulent climate science, that they have been denying the dangers of climate change that they have known about for decades, about 40 years. They come to their defense time and time again and not necessarily surprisingly because they are funding his campaign. The EPA is a more recent cabinet position. I think it came about during the Nixon administration and there is a lot of presidential power associated with the EPA. President Obama has proven that with the pen, without consulting Congress, he can do many things. What are some of the things that Trump could reverse over at EPA that would benefit ExxonMobil? So I think the first thing would be the climate rule, the clean power plan. Right now that's in the courts and so that might not be directly under EPA right now, but that's where it came out of and it could definitely go back there and prove it could. That's one of the things that he has sued to get rid of, so presumably he would get rid of any attempts to curb carbon pollution. A couple of other things that might be in danger with a prudent nomination is the EPA methane rule. Methane is a lot stronger than carbon dioxide, but causes the same issues with global warming, just in a more concentrated amount. EPA has recently made a rule that we would have to capture that. It's natural gas that can be burned, just like other natural gas and sold, but when it's just let to vent, it causes a lot of pollution. So that's one of the things that would be in danger. The ozone rule, ground level ozone is a bad for people's health, common in cities. That's another thing that would probably be targeted. And lastly, the clean water rule and the Exxon has publicly opposed all three of these rules. They've lobbied against them and put out statements that they would hurt their businesses and they, so presumably getting rid of them would help their business. You're listening to highlights from The David Feldman Show, heard nationwide on Pacifica Radio, or as a podcast on iTunes, Stitcher, and now YouTube. Please subscribe to this channel. For more information, go to davidfeldmanshow.com. Thank you for listening. The show program is made possible by listeners like you. You sad, pathetic humps.