ExxonMobil Strikes Back: Judge Greenlights Defamation Suit Against California AG Over Recycling Claims

California, under Attorney General Rob Bonta (and previously in broader actions with Governor Gavin Newsom), has pursued aggressive legal actions against “Big Oil” companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips.

California, under Attorney General Rob Bonta (and previously in broader actions with Governor Gavin Newsom), has pursued aggressive legal actions against “Big Oil” companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips.

  • A major 2023 lawsuit accusing these companies of decades of deception about the climate impacts of fossil fuels, seeking to hold them accountable for damages from events like wildfires, droughts, and sea-level rise.
  • A more recent September 2024 lawsuit by Bonta against ExxonMobil specifically, alleging deceptive marketing around “advanced recycling” for plastics. Bonta claimed Exxon misled consumers by promoting recyclability when less than 5% of plastics are actually recycled into new products, with much ending up in landfills, the environment, or incinerated.

These suits are part of a broader wave of climate-related litigation across states and cities, with California leading as the largest economy to take such actions.

ExxonMobil filed a defamation lawsuit in Texas federal court against Bonta (in his individual capacity) and some environmental groups. They argue that Bonta’s statements—such as in a campaign email claiming “Exxon Mobil knew, and Exxon Mobil lied”—were false and damaged their business, including contracts related to advanced recycling efforts.

In a recent ruling (around February 2026), U.S. District Judge Michael J. Truncale in Texas allowed the defamation case against Bonta to proceed, denying claims of official immunity for certain statements. (Note: A separate part of Exxon’s suit against environmental groups was dismissed, but the case against Bonta continues.)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Targeted by lawsuits and demonized, Big Oil signals it’s had enough with fight against California AG

From Just The News

By Kevin Killough

California Attorney General Rob Bonta hoped to earn his anti-fossil fuel credentials when he filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil in 2024, alleging the company was engaging in deceptive practices related to its “advanced recycling” program. 

He probably didn’t expect that the company would fight back the way it has. 

For years, oil companies have been the target of vitriol and lawfare, especially in California. When California’s gasoline prices spiked in the summer of 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom claimed refineries were “price gouging,” even though his own energy officials disputed the claim. Newsom signed legislation requiring the refineries to be transparent so that the alleged price gouging could be revealed, but in fact no evidence of gouging was ever found. 

In most cases, oil companies stay defensive when regulations and litigation target them with accusations of wrongdoing, but Exxon didn’t take Bonta’s lawsuit lying down. Instead, the company filed a defamation suit against Bonta and some environmental groups. 

Going on the offensive

Bonta had sought to get the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that the statements Exxon claims were defamatory were made in the course of his duties as attorney general, and that should grant him immunity from lawsuits. A federal judge earlier this month disagreed and ruled that Exxon could proceed with its case against Bonta. 

In 2024, Energy Transfer Partners successfully sued Greenpeace, and a North Dakota jury found the group at fault for harming the pipeline company’s reputation by publishing false statements during the 2016 protests over the North Dakota Access pipeline. North Dakota Judge James Gion set a settlement amount at $345 million, which was reduced from the jury’s original amount, and the Associated Press reports that he intends to make Greenpeace pay up. The organization warns that if it’s forced to pay, it will have to cease operations. It intends to appeal the decision. 

Whether or not Exxon was inspired by Energy Transfer Partners’ success, the lawsuit against Bonta represents a rare case of Big Oil going on the offensive. “I think the oil companies are sick and tired of getting beat around all the time,” said John Shu, a legal scholar who served in both Bush administrations. 

Connections to climate advocacy groups

In his lawsuit against Exxon, Bonta alleges that the oil giant misled the public on the efficacy of its ability to solve the “plastic waste and pollution crisis” with an advanced recycling process. Advanced recycling aims to turn plastic polymers back into their original molecules so they can be processed and used again as plastics or other products, such as jet fuel. 

As is the case with lawsuits seeking damages related to climate change, Bonta’s lawsuit is connected to well-funded anti-fossil fuel activist groups. In 2024, the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), which is funded by the Rockefeller Family Fund, published a report alleging that “Big Oil” deceived the public for decades and caused what it calls the “plastic waste crisis.” Bonta’s lawsuit cites the activists’ report and uses similar language.

Bloomberg Net Zero Obituary: “Even at the peak of its popularity, net zero looked far-fetched”

Bloomberg was until recently Net Zero’s chief champion. But now it was always obvious that Net Zero ambitions were not grounded in reality.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Bloomberg was until recently Net Zero’s chief champion. But now it was always obvious that Net Zero ambitions were not grounded in reality.

Net Zero Is Dead. Long Live Renewable Energy

February 25, 2026 at 2:00 PM GMT+10
By Javier Blas

Javier Blas is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy and commodities. He is coauthor of “The World for Sale: Money, Power and the Traders Who Barter the Earth’s Resources.”

…

In diplomacy, words matter. When the world’s richest nations got together in 2022 for their biennial energy meeting, their communique mentioned “net zero” 13 times; in 2024, the references went up to 15. After last week’s gathering? Just one occurrence — and that was to underline the lack of universal support. The word-count collapse is illustrative of the direction of global energy policy: Net zero is, effectively, dead.

…

Even at the peak of its popularity, net zero looked far-fetched. One had to believe, as a matter of faith, that consumption of oil, natural gas and coal would drop following stylized cliff-like curves. With current energy-related annual CO2 emissions running above 35,000 million metric tons, reducing them to something that would equal net zero was an impossible task. On current trends, emissions are likely to remain close to current levels for the next 25 years. Even if countries adopt most of the energy policies they’ve announced — a big if — they’ll remain above 25,000 million tons a year until the middle of the century. 

…

A few nations insisted on keeping the net-zero idea alive — notably the UK and Spain …

…

But don’t mistake the death of net zero for the end of renewable energy. The latter is very much alive. For the foreseeable future, electricity will be the fastest growing form of energy — and renewables will cover a significant chunk of the increase. The world will remain addicted to fossil fuels, but more of its additional power needs will be covered by solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and other green sources.

…Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-02-25/climate-change-net-zero-is-dead-long-live-renewable-energy

What a change a few years can make. Back in 2024, a Bloomberg columnist pronouncing the obituary of Net Zero would have been unthinkable.

So what happened to produce such a radical about face? One possibility, AI suddenly became really important in the investment landscape – and Bloomberg is a big player in the AI investment space.

And AI is incompatible with Net Zero.

Are solar panels and possibly even wind turbines here to stay? Absolutely. There are plenty of niche uses of solar energy where it makes sense, including in some cases powering remote sites, where the cost of importing energy exceeds the cost of a solar / battery system.

But until there is a major breakthrough, such as consumer acceptance of micro nuclear fission, or an energy breakthrough such as small portal nuclear fusion, or until we completely run out of recoverable fossil fuel, there will be no Net Zero.

We Didn’t Just Get Expensive Electricity. We Built a System That Makes It Inevitable.

Most Americans don’t think about electricity until the monthly bill arrives.

It comes once a month, often quietly, but lately it’s landed like a thud. Heating your home now costs hundreds more a month than it did just a few years ago. You use the same appliances. You flip the same switches. Nothing in your daily life has changed – except the price.

Watts Up With That?

By William Murray

Most Americans don’t think about electricity until the monthly bill arrives.

It comes once a month, often quietly, but lately it’s landed like a thud. Heating your home now costs hundreds more a month than it did just a few years ago. You use the same appliances. You flip the same switches. Nothing in your daily life has changed – except the price.

Why would that be?

When one looks inside the electricity system, the experience is less like analyzing an immense machine than being fed into one, resembling the immortal scene in “Modern Times” where Charlie Chaplin’s factory worker is swallowed by the equipment he’s working on.

The American electricity market is not guided by an “invisible hand” of supply and demand, but an accumulation of misaligned rules laid down over decades. Layer upon layer of regulation, subsidy, mandate, and accounting rules to a point where the system became fixed in an upward, inflationary tilt, impervious to efforts to change.

There are at least a half-dozen federal environmental regulations that have more to do with rising electricity prices than tariffs or the data-center buildout, and a good example to start with is called Construction Work in Progress (CWIP).

As a new issue brief makes clear, it helped change who pays for America’s infrastructure.

Chief among these contrivances was the quiet transfer of financial risk from investors to the public. Before the 1970s, utilities had to finish building a power plant before they could charge customers for it. If a company wanted to build something, it had to take the risk. Investors would put up the money. If the project succeeded, they earned a return. If it failed, they paid the price.

But during the inflation crisis of the 1970s, power plants — especially nuclear plants —became vastly more expensive to build. Utilities argued they couldn’t afford to wait years to recover their costs. During a moment of civic weakness, state regulators started allowing utilities to charge customers while the plants were still under construction.

CWIP permanently shifted investment risk away from investors and onto ordinary people. Today, you can open your electric bill and pay for projects that don’t exist yet and may be cancelled in the future.

No banker in his right mind would accept such terms voluntarily. Yet millions of Americans are compelled to do so every month if they’re served by an investor-owned electric company.

This system could have operated below the waterline indefinitely, had it not collided with the renewable energy revolution of the last 15 years. Wind and solar generation increased fourfold between 2011 and 2020, reaching record output by 2024.

These sources have advantages. But they also have a basic limitation: they don’t produce power all the time.

So utilities must build backup systems. Extra transmission lines. Extra capacity.

None of this redundancy is free. Every mile of wire, every idle backup turbine, every overpriced and underutilized battery storage unit will eventually, without fail, appear on a customer’s bill.

And thanks to rules like CWIP, they can charge you while you wait.

Many of these policies came from a sincere place. Beginning in the 1970s and accelerating in the decades that followed, a network of public-interest law firms and environmental advocacy groups gained enormous influence over how infrastructure gets approved.

Their goal was to protect the public.

But over time, something else happened.

They built a system where stopping projects became easier than building them. Where delay became a strategy. Where lawsuits became routine.

Each delay added to costs. Each cost increase justifies charging customers sooner. Each increase made the next one easier to accept.

Even writers like the New York Times’ Ezra Klein — hardly a critic of environmental goals — have begun to acknowledge the problem. He has argued that well-intentioned rules have made it far too hard to build the infrastructure society needs.

People think this is an important admission by Klein and his ilk, but it is not.

These ‘well-intentioned rules’ were simply created by an earlier generation of Ezra Klein “Abundance” types who set up the public interest lawfare firms and NGO indulgences system in the first place.

Klein’s autopsy revealed only that the Left promotes things that make themselves feel better while making the world worse, yet their slobbering idealism protects them from feeling the shame of failed responsibility. There is a Kafkaesque process at work, filled with Orwellian word games that stymie everything. It’s a dirty, soiled, can’t-do spirit masquerading as something more noble and dignified.

Because the issue isn’t whether the goals were noble. Noble intentions don’t matter.

It’s that the results are what matter, and the results are failures.

There is, however, a remedy — not a technological breakthrough, but something far better (albeit rarer) in Washington: legislative clarity.

One promising approach is legislation such as Representative Troy Balderson’s “Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act.” The bill seeks to establish clearer definitions of key terms like “affordable,” “reliable,” and “clean,” ensuring that investment risks are limited to cost-effective infrastructure projects only.

By recognizing the role of dispatchable resources such as natural gas and nuclear power, the legislation would also help ensure the grid maintains the reliability necessary to support modern life, all while meeting the standards of the Clean Air Act.

These reforms would not eliminate electricity price increases overnight. But they would begin to address one of the root causes: a system in which incentives increasingly misalign diverge from the interests of customers.

Electricity is not a luxury. It is a necessity that underpins economic growth, public safety, and household stability. Ensuring its affordability requires more than promises. It requires policies that encourage efficient investment, allocate risk appropriately, and maintain reliability.

Most of all, it comes from remembering a basic principle that once guided American growth:

You should pay for things when they work.

Not before.

Until that principle returns, electricity bills will continue their quiet climb upward, and Americans will continue to wonder why modern life feels harder to afford than it used to.

William Murray is a former speechwriter for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the past editor of RealClearEnergy from 2015-2017, and currently the chief speechwriter for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Sunnova’s Continuing Mess: Buyer Beware (Part II)

“The Sunnova case has become a cautionary tale in the solar industry, underscoring the importance of keeping all documentation … researching a company’s financial health before signing contracts. understanding all terms, especially service and maintenance obligations … avoiding tying financing solely to the installer.”

From The Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“The Sunnova case has become a cautionary tale in the solar industry, underscoring the importance of keeping all documentation … researching a company’s financial health before signing contracts. understanding all terms, especially service and maintenance obligations … avoiding tying financing solely to the installer.” (below)

MasterResource has chronicled the rise and fall of Enron-ex John Berger’s rooftop solar company, Sunnova Energy International Inc. [1] The whole rooftop solar proposition was dicey, even with taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies. “Subsidies like the DOE’s guarantees can incentivize firms to prioritize short-term gains over long-term compliance,” observed Issac Lane. “Sunnova’s aggressive sales tactics, which targeted vulnerable consumers, were enabled by its belief that federal backing insulated it from accountability.”

What is the latest, where Berger exited with millions of dollars and almost everyone else footed his bill (including taxpayers)? An AI search for “Criticism of Sunnova Energy” revealed:

Sunnova Energy, once one of the largest U.S. residential solar providers, has faced widespread criticism from customers, watchdogs, and industry observers following its 2025 bankruptcy filing.

Customer complaints and service issues
Homeowners have reported problems such as unfinished or delayed installations, canceled service and maintenance agreements, and ongoing loan obligations for systems that never worked orphananniesolar.com. Some customers say they were left paying for solar systems that were never completed, while others faced long delays in repairs or replacements. A Reddit homeowner even warned others to “stay away” after being left with a defunct system for months The Cool Down.

Reputation damage from sales practices
Critics have pointed to allegations of misleading sales tactics and poor-quality installations by Sunnova’s third-party dealer network blog.prevostlawfirm.com. The company’s reliance on external sales teams, while helping it scale quickly, also made it vulnerable to unethical practices and inconsistent service quality. These issues have eroded consumer trust and contributed to reputational harm.

Financial and operational failures
Sunnova’s collapse was driven by massive debt (around $8.9–10.67 billion), high interest rates, regulatory uncertainty, and declining residential solar demand EnergySage+1. The bankruptcy came after a $3 billion Department of Energy loan guarantee was terminated, and the company had already laid off over half its workforce EnergySage. Critics argue that aggressive growth and heavy debt loads without sufficient safeguards left the company exposed to market shocks.

Industry and legal scrutiny
Legal experts and consumer protection advocates have highlighted that Sunnova’s bankruptcy raises questions about contract enforcement, warranty rights, and consumer protection in the solar sector orphananniesolar.com+1. Some warn that customers may face long delays in resolving disputes or receiving service, and that future claims could be complicated by the bankruptcy process.

Key takeaways for consumers
The Sunnova case has become a cautionary tale in the solar industry, underscoring the importance of:

  • Researching a company’s financial health before signing contracts.
  • Understanding all terms, especially service and maintenance obligations.
  • Avoiding tying financing solely to the installer.
  • Keeping all documentation in case legal action is needed orphananniesolar.com.

In short, Sunnova’s criticism centers on poor customer service, questionable sales practices, and financial mismanagement, which together contributed to its downfall and left many homeowners in a difficult position.

It is very peculiar for rooftop solar advocates to raise their heads today. But so-called distributed generation is still in the planners’ plans. Elisa Wood, energy writer and editor, wrote:

A 75-year-old science group offers a new direction following the Trump administration’s climate rollback. Here’s why the plan features rooftop solar, batteries, microgrids and other forms of distributed energy.

I challenged her with the Sunnova example, and she responded:

Logical fallacy here. One company’s bankruptcy doesn’t damn a whole technology.

And I answered with a long, long list of U.S. solar bankruptcies that exceeded the word limit, so it is in two parts (here and here).

Final Comment

Journalists stuck in the climate alarmist, forced energy transformation mode are in a pickle. One hopes they can find another employment short of changing their views internally, a very difficult process. But Ms. Wood is at the beginning of her career. Maybe watching this video of Richard Feynman, “The Easiest Person to Fool Is Yourself“, will help the process. And as Milton and Rose Friedman noted (Free to Choose (1979), p. xii.):

The only person who can truly persuade you is yourself. You must turn the issues over in your mind at leisure, consider the many arguments, let them simmer, and after a long time turn your preferences into convictions.

[1] Previous posts have been:

The four rooftop-solar posts this week are:

No, Earth.com, Climate Change Isn’t Causing Dangerous Fungus Outbreaks

In the Earth.com article “Deadly fungus that will ‘eat you from the inside out’ is quickly spreading around the world,” Eric Ralls presents a dramatic warning that Aspergillus fungi are expanding their range due to climate change and threatening millions of people. This is false. The story’s most alarming claims are not based on observed fungal spread, but on model projections under a carbon dioxide high-emissions scenario. The article’s tone suggests ongoing, measurable expansion, but the underlying study only models hypothetical future distributions.

From The Climate Realism

By Anthony Watts

In the Earth.com article “Deadly fungus that will ‘eat you from the inside out’ is quickly spreading around the world,” Eric Ralls presents a dramatic warning that Aspergillus fungi are expanding their range due to climate change and threatening millions of people. This is false. The story’s most alarming claims are not based on observed fungal spread, but on model projections under a carbon dioxide high-emissions scenario. The article’s tone suggests ongoing, measurable expansion, but the underlying study only models hypothetical future distributions.

The headline claims a “Deadly fungus that will ‘eat you from the inside out’ is quickly spreading around the world.” That false and inflammatory phrase appears in the title — not in the scientific content itself. Nowhere in the body of the article does the phrase “eat you from the inside out” appear in a clinical or epidemiological context. This suggests it is clickbait framing layered onto a modeling paper.

The central numbers driving the alarm come from a carbon dioxide high-emissions scenario, specifically a derivative of RCP 8.5, an assemblage of computer model outputs that most scientists have abandoned as being highly unrealistic or unlikely. The National Center for Atmospheric Research says that RCP 8.5 is “not considered a likely scenario,” and Climate Realism has repeatedly debunked its continued use, here, here, and here, for example, pointing out that it is more than just unlikely but rather that based on the carbon stored on land and in oceans, it is probably impossible.

Still, the authors of the study used the problematic high-emissions scenario to project that the range of A. flavus in Europe could expand by about 16 percent. Under this projection, an additional one million people across Europe could possibly be placed at risk of fungal infection. That is not an observation of current spread. It is a conditional projection based on modeled climate inputs.

There is no presentation of observational data showing that Aspergillus infections have increased over the past 40-plus years of documented global warming. No infection-rate time series is shown. No continental trend data are cited. No public health surveillance datasets are presented demonstrating a statistically significant upward trajectory correlated with temperature.

This distinction matters.

Species distribution modeling, often using tools such as MaxENT, estimates habitat suitability under assumed climate inputs. It does not demonstrate present-day expansion. It produces scenario-based suitability maps. Modeling hypothetical future habitat changes is not the same as documenting real-world spread.

If warming temperatures over the past 40 years were already driving dangerous fungal expansion, we would expect to see documented increases in infection incidence correlated with temperature over decades. Instead, risk factors for aspergillosis are overwhelmingly clinical and environmental. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explains on its Aspergillosis Overview page that infection primarily affects individuals with weakened immune systems and is commonly associated with hospital construction dust exposure, organ transplantation, and severe immunosuppression. Climate change is not identified as a primary driver of current case incidence.

The Earth.com article also highlights antifungal resistance. Yet azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus has been strongly linked to agricultural fungicide use, as summarized by the CDC in its page on Azole-Resistant Aspergillosis. That is a pharmaceutical and agricultural stewardship issue, not evidence of climate-driven geographic spread.

The article references Candida auris as an example of climate-linked emergence. The hypothesis suggesting a warming connection was published in mBio by the American Society for Microbiology in “On the Emergence of Candida auris.” That paper proposed thermal adaptation as a possibility. But, most importantly, it did not establish causation. Hypothesis is not proof.

Even the Earth.com piece concedes that fungi remain “relatively under-researched compared to viruses and parasites.” That admission undercuts the certainty implied by the headline. If surveillance gaps exist, projections should be framed cautiously — not amplified into declarations of rapid global spread.

There is no quantified demonstration in the article that infection incidence per capita has increased in Europe in step with observed warming of roughly 1°C since the late-twentieth century. If warming over the past four decades were already driving continental fungal spread, robust surveillance data would demonstrate it. It doesn’t. Invasive aspergillosis case numbers are influenced by chemotherapy prevalence, organ transplantation rates, improved diagnostics, hospital practices, and antifungal resistance — all confounding variables absent from the Earth.com narrative.

None of this minimizes the seriousness of fungal infections in vulnerable populations. Aspergillus can be life-threatening for immunocompromised patients. Antifungal resistance is a legitimate concern. The Earth.com headline declares a deadly fungus is “quickly spreading around the world.” By contrast, the research it references says nothing about any ongoing expansion of the disease. Earth.com’s conflating modeled habitat suitability under extreme emissions scenarios with present-day spread has resulted in an inaccurate, unjustifiably alarming story.

Presenting overhyped projections about future infections as if it represented an ongoing global fungal expansion is lying, not reporting and certainly not trustworthy journalism. Earth.com should be ashamed of framing this non-issue as a clickbait story designed to scare people.

Three Times the Cost, Causes Earthquakes–Roll on the Green Power Revolution!

Economically attractive, he says! What a joke. It is only viable because of the £3 million a year CfD subsidy plus that £1.8 million bung. And all for a miniscule contribution to UK electricity supply. The 3 MW quoted might generate 25,000 MWh a year, compared to total UK demand of 300,000,000 MWh.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

More naive reporting from Matt Oliver:

The promise of underground riches is nothing new in Cornwall. But on Thursday, the region will plumb new depths in the quest to harness Britain’s natural resources.

For the first time, the United Downs deep geothermal power plant will start generating 24/7 electricity at a site near Redruth.

With an output of around three megawatts, enough to power roughly 10,000 homes, the plant cannot exactly be described as game-changing.

Yet experts believe it will help pave the way for similar projects across Britain aimed at tapping into the vast thermal resources below our feet.

The United Downs project, developed by Geothermal Engineering Ltd (GEL), will draw water at temperatures of around 190C from underground reservoirs that sit approximately five kilometres beneath the surface.

It takes advantage of a natural fault line using two wells, one that draws water up and one that pumps it back into the granite rock formations. Water that is brought above ground is run through a heat exchanger which uses another liquid with a lower boiling point to make steam and drive a turbine.

The result is power that is nearly always on – whatever the weather – save for short maintenance periods, says Ryan Law, the chief executive of GEL.

“Once you have done your drilling and the rest of it, the plant then runs 24/7 for about 96pc of the year,” he says.

In renewable energy, these kinds of numbers are virtually unheard of. Utility-scale solar tends to only push 25pc of the year while wind farms tend to land somewhere between 20pc and 40pc.

Full story here.

I’m not sure who these “experts” are. They would not be paid by GEL, by some chance?

The article also contains serious errors, not least the claim that solar power works at 25% efficiency. The true number is half that.

Bot the biggest error is this:

Matt Oliver obviously does not realise that £119/MWh is at 2012 prices! The current strike price is £170.50/MWh, three times the price of gas power:

Economically attractive, he says! What a joke. It is only viable because of the £3 million a year CfD subsidy plus that £1.8 million bung. And all for a miniscule contribution to UK electricity supply. The 3 MW quoted might generate 25,000 MWh a year, compared to total UK demand of 300,000,000 MWh.

But it gets much worse! The process has been causing earth tremors, as Oliver reports:

Like fracking, however, this kind of drilling can cause unnerving mini-earthquakes.

In Britain, ministers effectively outlawed fracking for oil and gas when they limited operations that create tremors of more than a 0.5 magnitude.

There are no such rules for geothermal, even though it has caused mini-tremors that were three times more powerful than this, with the industry instead regulated based on its surface vibrations. Law argues that this is more sensible because it measures the actual effects above ground.

So it’s OK to have earthquakes three times as powerful as from fracking, because geothermal is “good” and fracking “bad”.

FOOTNOTE

I have left comments for Matt Oliver, pointing out his CfD strike price error, but so far, the article still has not been corrected.