At Heartland's law firm: "Carbon Matters"

authordefault
on

Levenfeld Pearlstein, the law firm that has stepped up to pass on complaints about the publication of leaked Heartland Institute documents, appears to be one of the greenest in Chicago. For example, James Brusslan, head of the Environmental Services Group at Levenfeld Pearlstein, says companies should act now to prevent climate changeย because:

The IPCC has determined with virtual certainty that humans are the cause of significant global warming due to increased emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), including carbon dioxide and methane. Many scientists believe if we do not take action quickly, the impact could beย catastrophic.

It would be interesting to know how Brussland gets along with Michael Padden, son of the Heartland Institute’s founder David Padden and author of the most recent letter asking the DeSmogBlog to take down the document that describes, accurately and succinctly, Heartland’s Climate Strategy forย 2012.

authordefault
Admin's short bio, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Voluptate maxime officiis sed aliquam! Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit.

Related Posts

on

Boycott reflects wider concerns over the role of communications firms in protecting polluters.

Boycott reflects wider concerns over the role of communications firms in protecting polluters.
on

Waitrose, Co-op, Lidl, Asda and Aldi among retailers selling fish fed on west African catch

Waitrose, Co-op, Lidl, Asda and Aldi among retailers selling fish fed on west African catch
on

BP, Chevron, Shell, and other oil majors back arts and community groups to protect their business models, subpoenaed documents show.

BP, Chevron, Shell, and other oil majors back arts and community groups to protect their business models, subpoenaed documents show.
on

Lord Offord presented a report by Kathryn Porter, which has been criticised for giving a โ€œmisleading pictureโ€ of clean energy costs.

Lord Offord presented a report by Kathryn Porter, which has been criticised for giving a โ€œmisleading pictureโ€ of clean energy costs.