+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8447
Total Topics: 228
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery  (Read 3055 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #30 on: June 16, 2015, 06:37:01 pm »
Fossil Fuel-Funded Lawmakers Want to Weaken Human and Environmental Health Protections

Elliott Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists | June 16, 2015 10:02 am

Americans consistently support environmental safeguards by wide margins. A survey of likely 2016 voters, for instance, found that 91 percent of Americans endorse strengthening drinking water and air pollution protections, 87 percent want expanded renewable energy development, and 82 percent would like the government to place limits on power plant carbon pollution.


Texas Republican Lamar Smith  :evil4: , chairman of the House Science Committee, wants to make it more difficult for the EPA to do its job. Photo credit: The Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy.

Despite those numbers, industry-backed legislators in both houses of Congress have been introducing—and reintroducing—benign-sounding bills over the last few years that would do the exact opposite of what a solid majority of Americans want.  The sponsors of these Trojan Horse bills claim they would increase accountability and transparency, but in fact they would obstruct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies from enacting science-based rules, setting back public health and environmental protections for decades to come.

Full article at link. Bring your barf bag.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/...eaken-health-protections/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2015, 02:30:02 pm »
Koch Brothers Exposed for Campaign Contributions to 19 Members of Congress Who Voted to Deny Fair Compensation to Asbestos Victims  >:(

Environmental Working Group | July 16, 2015 10:42 am

House Judiciary Committee members who voted for a bill that could delay or deny fair compensation to asbestos victims received almost $3.3 million in campaign contributions over the last five years from companies that would benefit from the legislation, according to an investigation of federal records by Environmental Working Group (EWG) Action Fund.




The so-called FACT Act, H.R. 526, authored by Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.), is being supported by dozens of companies and industry associations with billions of dollars worth of liability for deaths and diseases caused by exposing workers, their families or consumers to asbestos. On May 14, the Judiciary panel approved it 19 to 9. The full House is expected to debate it soon.

“Rep. Farenthold’s bill claims to be about increasing transparency for asbestos claims, but it’s really just a scheme to delay paying for victims’ deaths and illnesses as long as possible,” said Bill Walker of EWG Action Fund and author of the report.

“The FACT Act would not only erect needless bureaucratic hurdles to victims’ compensation, but by forcing them to make public their personal financial data, could put them at risk of identity theft,” Walker said. “You might think such a bad bill would be a non-starter for members of Congress, but our report shows how asbestos interests are using their cash and clout in an attempt to deny justice and evade the consequences of their liability.”

The Koch brothers empire, which includes the forest products giant Georgia-Pacific, and its affiliated political action committee, has given the 19 committee members who voted for the FACT Act $241,500 since 2010. Koch network contributions were exceeded only by defense contractor Honeywell International, which gave the members more than $245,000.



In addition to their campaign contributions, since 2010, Koch, Honeywell, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others aligned with asbestos interests have spent unknown millions of dollars on K Street, lobbying for the bill.

Most of the largest contributors to congressional supporters of the FACT Act were defense contractors, who have exposed millions of Americans to asbestos over the years. But big donors also included AT&T, ExxonMobil, railroads and insurance companies.

Koch’s Georgia-Pacific subsidiary is facing tens of thousands of lawsuits from people exposed to asbestos in its pipe joint compound. The company’s estimated liability is nearly $1 billion—culpability it tried to skirt by funding bogus scientific studies falsely concluding that the type of asbestos used in the product does not cause cancer.

Honeywell International, whose political action committee donated more money to members of Congress than any other U.S. corporate PAC, has paid out more than $1 billion in asbestos damages since 2010.

The 19 FACT Act supporters on the House Judiciary Committee received an average of $173,267 apiece from asbestos interests since 2010.

EWG Action Fund examined federal records of campaign contributions to members of the House Judiciary Committee who voted for the FACT Act, starting with the 2010 election cycle.

The EWG Action Fund report compiles contributions from companies that met at least one of these criteria:

•Companies or industry associations that have disclosed on federal forms that they lobbied for the FACT Act or for asbestos litigation reform.

•Companies named in court decisions in the last 10 years as defendants in asbestos lawsuits.

•Companies that have disclosed significant asbestos liability in Securities and Exchange Commission filings or whose liability was confirmed by news reports.


House Judiciary Committee members who received the most campaign contributions from asbestos interests between 2010 and 2015 were:

•Lamar Smith (R-TX), $382,150
•Darryl Issa (R-CA), $372,329
•Virgil Goodlatte (R-VA), the committee chair, $300,879
•Randy Forbes (R-VA), $286,285
•Blake Farenthold (R-TX), $239,250


EWG Action Fund’s full analysis is here:

Asbestos Interests Gave $3.3 Million to House Members Who Voted to Impede Compensation for Victims

http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/16/koch-brothers-exposed-asbestos/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #32 on: July 17, 2015, 08:03:05 pm »
Thursday, July 16, 2015
 
FLORIDA’S SOLAR FIGHT GETS MEANER

Second group launches solar energy ballot initiative
Jim Turner, July 16, 2015 (Sun Sentinel)

“A new ‘pro solar-energy’  coalition will push for its own ballot initiative as a way to counter a separate group's proposed constitutional amendment to expand the use of solar energy in Florida… Consumers for Smart Solar    , a group whose leadership includes two former state lawmakers, a Jacksonville tea-party founder, and a former chairman of the Florida Public Service Commission…will race to collect signatures to get on the 2016 ballot alongside the ongoing effort by a group known as Floridians for Solar Choice [to make solar leasing possible in the state]…



 “[M]embers of the new group described the proposal by Floridians for Solar Choice — now under review by the state Supreme Court — as a ‘power grab ’   by out-of-state [national solar installers like SolarCity and Sunrun]… Floridians for Solar Choice [which includes the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, the Florida Retail Federation, Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, the Ecology Party of Florida, the Evangelical Environmental Network, Greenpeace USA, the Sierra Club Florida, the Space Coast Climate Change Initiative and The Tea Party Network] responded that the newest opposition ‘is a slickly developed campaign to potentially confuse voters’ and said it believes the effort is supported by [traditional fossil fuel and nuclear interests and utilities]…” 

http://newenergynews.blog...ar-fight-gets-meaner.html

Agelbert NOTE: The fossil fuelers and nuke pukes never stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes while they fleece AND poison us 24/7. I hope the Floridians for Solar Choice expose the "Consumers for Smart Solar" (See Orwell) profit over people and planet, Empathy Deficit Disordered skullduggery for all to see.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2015, 05:57:56 pm »
Corruption of Government and Environment by Fossil Fuel Companies


https://youtu.be/Yq9kFlfeMzQ
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #34 on: October 07, 2015, 07:30:33 pm »
Watch The Fossil Fuel Government DO WHAT IT DOES to prevent the fossil fuel industry from being held liable for, and paying for, their CRIMES>:(
Climate Scientist Faces Backlash for Urging Investigation of Fossil Fuel Companies


Jagadish Shukla will be questioned by a Congressional committee after he and other scientists called for a racketeering probe of deliberate climate denial.


By Katherine Bagley, InsideClimate News   

Oct 7, 2015

This story was updated on Oct. 7 at 2:00 p.m.

A climate scientist who was the lead signatory on a letter urging President Obama to launch a federal investigation into whether fossil fuel companies "knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change" is now facing an investigation by Congress because of his part in the letter.

Jagadish Shukla  , a climate scientist at George Mason University in Virginia, received notice Oct. 1 that the non-profit research organization he runs, the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES), will soon be investigated by the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology for suspected misuse of federal funding.

Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas , who chairs the House committee, requested that Shukla and IGES "preserve all e-mail, electronic documents, and data (‘electronic records’) created since January 1, 2009," according to the notice.

The investigation stems from Shukla's involvement in the letter to President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and White House science advisor John Holdren on Sept. 1. The letter's 20 signees—climate scientists from Columbia University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the University of Maryland and other institutions—asked the administration to explore whether energy companies could be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of 1970 for purposefully casting doubt on the scientific evidence for climate change. Federal prosecutors used the RICO Act in the 1990s and 2000s to sue tobacco companies for covering up the health impacts of smoking. ScienceInsider first reported Smith's investigation.

Shukla's research organization, IGES, posted a copy of the RICO letter to its website—a move that Smith told Shukla "raises serious concerns"  ::) over a taxpayer-funded scientific group "participating in partisan political activity." The research center has received funds from the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

"Promoting a lobbying effort and publicizing that effort on a website is not an appropriate use of federal research funds," an aide for the House Science, Space and Technology Committee told InsideClimate News.

"Additional questions have been raised regarding the fiscal management of federal grant dollars received by IGES and the transfer of IGES to George Mason University," the aide said. The committee will be looking into the salaries of Shukla and his wife Anastasia, who works as the organization's business manager.

Quote
"I signed this letter as a private citizen on personal time, urging action on climate change, and I have been shocked by the reaction," Shukla told InsideClimate News. "Any allegations of inappropriate behavior are untrue."

IGES said the letter was posted on its website inadvertently. It has since been removed.

"IGES's recent decision to remove documents from its website raises concerns that additional information vital to the Committee's investigation may not be preserved," Smith wrote. Smith informed Shukla he and his colleagues had until Oct. 8 to inform the House Committee on how IGES would comply with the request.

"The House Science Committee isn’t going after Dr. Shukla and his colleagues for their scientific work, but for their opinions as private citizens," said Michael Halpern, program manager of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Scientists have the same right as anyone to engage in the political process and express their beliefs without fear of being hauled before Congress for their views."

A History of Inquiries

Smith's investigation is just the latest in a long line of probes into climate scientists by conservative politicians. In 2005, Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, who was then Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, examined the work of climate scientists Michael Mann of Penn State and Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts. Over the last decade, the scientific community has had to field an increasing number of public records requests from conservative groups looking to cast doubt on their research.

"Overall, scientists whose work is policy relevant are certainly under more scrutiny than ever before through a variety of means, from subpoenas to open records requests, and need to be prepared to respond to that scrutiny," said Halpern. Such investigations, he said, "can send the wrong message to researchers about how valuable their expertise is to society. We need scientists to engage in public conversations on science-based issues, no matter how contentious the topic."    

The biggest difference between Smith's investigation today and the one Mann and Bradley faced in 2005, Mann said, is that "back then, there were a number of moderate pro-science, pro-environment Republicans who came to my defense. Chief among them was Sherwood Boehlert—an old-school Republican from upstate New York."

Quote
"Unfortunately, we no longer have moderate republicans like Boehlert chairing the House science committee," said Mann.  >:(
The old fossil fuel industry FUNDED witch hunt.  >:(

Shukla and his colleagues' letter was sent three weeks before an eight-month investigation by InsideClimate News showed that ExxonMobil's own research confirmed fossil fuels' role in climate change in the 1970s and 1980s. The company then spent the next two decades funding a campaign to derail climate regulations and question climate science.

"If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible,"  Shulka and the other climate scientists wrote in the letter.

Holdren wrote back to the researchers that "the [Obama] administration shares the concern expressed in the letter about the seriousness of the threat posed by climate change," according to ScienceInsider.

ScienceInsider also reported that Shulka is not the only signatory of the letter facing backlash.

Attorney Christopher Horner , a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian think tank, filed a public records request with several of the signatories' universities for emails contained the words "RICO, racketeer, racketeering, DOJ, prosecute or prosecution."

Quote
"If they believe this is part of their job, we will not dispute that, but instead would like to see how the institutions were used in this innovative application of public education resources," Horner told ScienceInsider. 


http://insideclimatenews....nies-lamar-smith-congress

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #35 on: October 07, 2015, 08:59:19 pm »
British Government Accused of Distorting Market in Support of Fossil Fuels and Nukes  >:(

Alex Kirby, Climate News Network | October 7, 2015 10:14 am

One of the pioneers of the UK’s renewable energy industry says the British government is distorting the market in an attempt to support fossil fuels and nuclear power.


Onshore wind farms in the UK have had government support cut. Photo credit: Andy Magee / Flickr

Onshore wind farms in the UK have had government support cut. Photo credit: Andy Magee / Flickr

His accusation comes as the industry’s trade association, RenewableUK, announces that in the second quarter of this year renewable energy produced 25.3 percent of the country’s electricity—more than either nuclear power (21.5 percent) or coal (20.5 percent).

The accuser is Dale Vince, who in 1995 founded the green energy company Ecotricity, which supplies almost 170,000 British customers with wind and solar power.

He is challenging the government to scrap its subsidies for nuclear power and fossil fuels in order to “create a level playing field” after it cut support for renewable energy.


Abandon Policies 

Last month, the influential Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said countries should abandon fossil fuel support policies.

Vince said that in the second quarter of 2015 renewable energy had, for the first time, outperformed the nuclear and coal industries. And it had done so with a fraction of the subsidies that fossil fuels and nuclear power enjoyed.

He said:

Quote
“Renewable energy receives one-tenth of the support that fossil fuels do, yet powers 25 percent of the country. And government says only renewable energy has to stand on its own two feet. It makes no economic sense. Britain is blessed with enough renewable energy to power our entire country several times over, safely, without pollution and at the lowest cost of all energy sources.”

Vince added that the International Monetary Fund put UK subsidies to the fossil industries in Britain at £30 billion (US$45.5 bn) annually—more than £1,000 (US$1,500) per household per year. “In contrast, support for all renewable energy amounted to £2.6 billion last year, about £100 per household per year, with onshore wind—which is the main focus of government attacks—adding just £10 to household energy bills.”

“Unfortunately, the government appears ideologically opposed to renewable energy and has moved to put a stop to this incredible success story, ” says Vince.

“It is not just cutting all support and increasing planning hurdles, but even going so far as to make renewable energy pay the Climate Change Levy, which is (or was) a tax on fossil fuels to fund climate change measures. Renewable energy in Britain now effectively subsidizes the fossil fuel industry—to the tune of £1 billion every year, ” he adds.

Last week, the government announced it would pay a further £2 bn to encourage the Chinese to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in the west of England.

Vince said the plant would be paid twice the market price for power, for the next 35 years—”and then we’ll have to clean up the mess left behind, which already amounts to £120 billion for the current fleet of nuclear plants being decommissioned.”

Widespread Criticism   

Plans by the government to supplement its aging fleet of nuclear power stations with a new reactor at Hinkley Point is attracting widespread criticism—not just from anti-nuclear campaigners, but also from the energy industry and investment banks.

The government is also intent on exploiting shale gas. As the energy and climate change secretary, Amber Rudd, explained in August: “We are backing the safe development of shale gas because it’s good for jobs, giving hardworking people and their families more financial security, good for our energy security and part of our plan to decarbonize the economy.”

“We need more secure, home-grown energy supplies—and shale gas must play a part in that.”

As claims mount that the UK’s energy policy is in disarray, the hapless Rudd has been renamed “Amber Rudderless” by some of her critics.

The UK government’s policy appears to ignore global trends. Worldwide, 2015 marks a doubling of the renewable energy sector from its size just 10 years ago.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/...43dc9-915c031796-85912329
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #36 on: October 24, 2015, 02:39:31 pm »
     

What's wrong with the rest of this country?
??? Fossil Fuel Industry CORRUPTION and THREATS!

24 States Sue Obama Over Clean Power Plan   
http://ecowatch.com/2015/...lean-power-plan-lawsuits/

Quote
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other. And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically.

They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves. If they do, then we are all dead.

 And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other.



Internal Documents Expose Fossil Fuel Industry’s Decades of Deception on Climate Change.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #37 on: November 14, 2015, 06:17:45 pm »
Monsta said,
Quote
Let us assume the false flag theory is true and this event was planned what would be the objective of such an event? Would it be to convince the French public to be more supportive of aggressive military actions or to take a more hard line approach to immigration? I think if there is a motive it would more likely be the former as staging an event like this simply to reduce immigration is overkill.

I agree that the motive is not more war in the Middle East or the immigration thing.

So, WHAT IS THE MOTIVE?

Polluters Goebbels Style Conspiracy to Sabotage COP21

Let us connect the war profiteering dots, shall we? Some here will scoff and say I just discarded "more war" as a motive. Yes, I did that. But I DID NOT discard WAR SCARE propaganda.

WHAT, EXACTLY, is scheduled to happen next month in PARIS that threatens the bottom line of ALL the war profiteering ****s all over the planet?

COP21!

Can you think of a better way to DISTRACT the worldwide public from the climate change reforms that spell bankruptcy for the polluting "business models" that RELY on price shocks and wars to keep making billions of dollars in profits to buy or bop politicians with?

Can you think of a better way to frighten all the delegates from all over the world coming to Paris next month?

Can you think of a better way to keep the climate change issue OFF the front pages while the COP21 conference gets CASTRATED by the fossil fuel, mining, chemical, weapons manufacturing and pharmaceutical (etc.) industries?

THESE PEOPLE WILL DO ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING TO PRESERVE THEIR PROFITS!
 
Polluters: Do not **** with our "business model" or our profits.  :evil4:

IF IT'S BLOOD ON THE STREETS THAT IS CALLED FOR, THEY WILL DO IT! THEY HAVE A TRACK RECORD FOR DOING IT!. FOLLOW THE GOD DAMNED MONEY! $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$ EVERY YEAR!!!

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #38 on: November 28, 2015, 04:43:09 pm »

4 Ways Exxon Stopped Action on Climate Change 


http://ecowatch.com/2015/...on-stopped-climate-action
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #39 on: December 02, 2015, 02:57:39 pm »
 

Exxon Targets Journalists Who Exposed Massive Climate Change Cover-Up

http://www.truthdig.com/r...climate_cover-up_20151201
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #40 on: December 22, 2015, 03:29:23 pm »
Quote
As the Dec. 23 deadline approaches for the fossil fuel industry to respond to legal briefs in support of the Clean Power Plan, the Sierra Club released The Fight Before Christmas, a new version of the beloved holiday poem A Visit from St. Nicholas, illustrating the activities of corporate polluters and their allies two nights before Christmas.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/...22/clean-power-plan-poem/





Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #41 on: December 22, 2015, 09:15:03 pm »

Quote
“Process,” “roadmap,” “framework.” We need to use the technical word “bulls hit” to describe these phrases. They are words to describe non-agreements, words to fool the public into thinking something important has actually been accomplished.

Despite all the hype about how cheap renewal energy is becoming it’s still cheaper to burn fossil fuels (FF), since FF producers don’t have to pay a dime to treat their deadly (to the climate) carbon dioxide waste. Thanks to fracking and other factors the price of methane (natural gas) is at a 16 year low. The U.S. has so much oil it can now export it again. The obvious, obvious need for a tax to pay for FF waste is not mentioned in the agreement.

The agreement doesn’t even challenge the subsidies that governments give to the FF industries to go out and find more carbon to burn. A piece in Scientific American in May 2015 calculated the total yearly amount of these subsidies, a breathtaking; mind boggling $5 trillion, $5 trillion a year to hasten the end of a human-favored climate.   

‘Progress’ Is Fatal   
Posted on Dec 21, 2015

By Stanley Heller / PeaceNews

http://www.truthdig.com/r...rogress_is_fatal_20151221


The REALLY inconvenient truth!
 


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #42 on: February 19, 2016, 06:28:33 pm »
Koch Brothers Plotting Multimillion Dollar War on Electric Vehicles   

Lorraine Chow | February 19, 2016 2:45 pm

SNIPPETS:

Death to the electric car?    Charles and David Koch are reportedly backing a new group that will use millions to promote petroleum and fight against government subsidies for electric vehicles.

In an effort to strike back at record-breaking EV sales, the fossil fuel industry is allegedly funding a new organization that will spend $10 million a year to push petroleum-based transportation fuels and attack government subsidies on EVs, refining industry sources told the Huffington Post.


Elon Musk
✔  ‎‎@elonmusk 

Worth noting that all gasoline cars are heavily subsidized via oil company tax credits & unpaid public health costs.  http://www.theguardian.co...ute-in-subsidies-says-imf


http://ecowatch.com/2016/...koch-brothers-war-on-evs/


Comment by renewableguy

Fossil fuels is scared sh--less.

Agelbert reply:
Yep.

Amory Lovins knows the score. The fossil fuel industry is a wounded beast. It's days are numbered.

QUOTE
Over the past 40 years, Americans have saved 31 times as much energy as renewables added. Those cumulative savings are equivalent to 21 years’ current energy use.  They’re simply invisible: you can’t see the energy you don’t use. But globally, it’s a bigger “supply” than oil, and inexorably, it’s going to get much, much bigger.

Oil companies worry about climate regulation, but they’re even more at risk from market competition. The oil that’ll be unburnable for climate reasons is probably less than the oil that’ll be unsellable because efficiency and renewables can do the same job cheaper.

An oil business that sputters when oil’s at $90 a barrel, swoons at $50, and dies at $30 will not do well against the $25 cost of getting U.S. mobility—or anyone else’s, since the technologies are fungible—completely off oil by 2050. That cost, like the $18 per saved barrel to make U.S. automobiles uncompromised, attractive, cost-effective, and oil-free, is a 2010–11 analytic result; today’s costs are even lower and continue to fall.

In short, like whale oil in the 1850s, oil is becoming uncompetitive even at low prices before it became unavailable even at high prices.
UNQUOTE

As Oil Prices Gyrate, Underlying Trends Are Shifting To Oil's Disadvantage
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2016, 07:44:36 pm »
Bill McKibben: It’s Not Just What Exxon Did, It’s What It’s Doing

Bill McKibben, TomDispatch | February 19, 2016 9:18 am

Here’s the story so far. We have the chief legal representatives of the eighth 8 and 16th largest economies on Earth (California and New York) probing the biggest fossil fuel company on Earth (ExxonMobil), while both Democratic presidential candidates are demanding that the federal Department of Justice join the investigation of what may prove to be one of the biggest corporate scandals in American history. And that’s just the beginning. As bad as Exxon has been in the past, what it’s doing now—entirely legally—is helping push the planet over the edge and into the biggest crisis in the entire span of the human story.

Quote

As bad as Exxon has been in the past, what it’s doing now—entirely legally—is helping push the planet over the edge and into the biggest crisis in the entire span of the human story.

Back in the fall, you might have heard something about how Exxon had covered up what it knew early on about climate change. Maybe you even thought to yourself: that doesn’t surprise me. But it should have. Even as someone who has spent his life engaged in the bottomless pit of greed that is global warming, the news and its meaning came as a shock: we could have avoided, it turns out, the last quarter century of pointless climate debate.

As a start, investigations by the Pulitzer-Prize winning Inside Climate News, the Los Angeles Times and Columbia Journalism School revealed in extraordinary detail that Exxon’s top officials had known everything there was to know about climate change back in the 1980s. Even earlier, actually. Here’s what senior company scientist James Black told Exxon’s management committee in 1977: “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.” To determine if this was so, the company outfitted an oil tanker with carbon dioxide sensors to measure concentrations of the gas over the ocean and then funded elaborate computer models to help predict what temperatures would do in the future.

The results of all that work were unequivocal. By 1982, in an internal “corporate primer,” Exxon’s leaders were told that, despite lingering unknowns, dealing with climate change “would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.” Unless that happened, the primer said, citing independent experts, “there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered … Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible.” But that document, “given wide circulation” within Exxon, was also stamped “Not to be distributed externally.”

So here’s what happened.
Exxon used its knowledge of climate change to plan its own future. The company, for instance, leased large tracts of the Arctic for oil exploration, territory where, as a company scientist pointed out in 1990, “potential global warming can only help lower exploration and development costs.” Not only that but, “from the North Sea to the Canadian Arctic,” Exxon and its affiliates set about “raising the decks of offshore platforms, protecting pipelines from increasing coastal erosion and designing helipads, pipelines and roads in a warming and buckling Arctic.” In other words, the company started climate-proofing its facilities to head off a future its own scientists knew was inevitable.

But in public? 
There, Exxon didn’t own up to any of this. In fact, it did precisely the opposite. In the 1990s, it started to put money and muscle into obscuring the science around climate change. It funded think tanks that spread climate denial and even recruited lobbying talent from the tobacco industry. It also followed the tobacco playbook when it came to the defense of cigarettes by highlighting “uncertainty” about the science of global warming. And it spent lavishly to back political candidates who were ready to downplay global warming.


Its CEO, Lee Raymond, even traveled to China in 1997 and urged government leaders there to go full steam ahead in developing a fossil fuel economy. The globe was cooling, not warming, he insisted, while his engineers were raising drilling platforms to compensate for rising seas. “It is highly unlikely,” he said, “that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are enacted now or 20 years from now.” Which wasn’t just wrong, but completely and overwhelmingly wrong—as wrong as a man could be.

Sins of Omission


In fact, Exxon’s deceit—its ability to discourage regulations for 20 years—may turn out to be absolutely crucial in the planet’s geological history. It’s in those two decades that greenhouse gas emissions soared, as did global temperatures until, in the twenty-first century, “hottest year ever recorded” has become a tired cliché. And here’s the bottom line: had Exxon told the truth about what it knew back in 1990, we might not have wasted a quarter of a century in a phony debate about the science of climate change, nor would anyone have accused Exxon of being “alarmist.” We would simply have gotten to work.

But Exxon didn’t tell the truth. A Yale study published last fall in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that money from Exxon and the Koch Brothers played a key role in polarizing the climate debate in this country.

The company’s sins—of omission and commission—may even turn out to be criminal. Whether the company “lied to the public” is the question that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman decided to investigate last fall in a case that could make him the great lawman of our era if his investigation doesn’t languish. There are various consumer fraud statutes that Exxon might have violated and it might have failed to disclose relevant information to investors, which is the main kind of lying that’s illegal in this country of ours. Now, Schneiderman’s got backup from California Attorney General Kamala Harrisand maybe—if activists continue to apply pressure—from the Department of Justice as well, though its highly publicized unwillingness to go after the big banks does not inspire confidence.

Here’s the thing: all that was bad back then, but Exxon and many of its Big Energy peers are behaving at least as badly now when the pace of warming is accelerating. And it’s all legal—dangerous, stupid and immoral, but legal.

On the face of things, Exxon has, in fact, changed a little in recent years.

For one thing, it’s stopped denying climate change, at least in a modest way. Rex Tillerson, Raymond’s successor as CEO, stopped telling world leaders that the planet was cooling. Speaking in 2012 at the Council on Foreign Relations, he said, “I’m not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going
to have an impact. It’ll have a warming impact.”

Of course, he immediately went on to say that its impact was uncertain indeed   , hard to estimate and in any event entirely manageable.    His language was striking. “We will adapt to this.    Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around—we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem and it has engineering solutions.”

Add to that gem of a comment this one: the real problem, he insisted, was that “we have a society that by and large is illiterate in these areas, science, math and engineering, what we do is a mystery to them and they find it scary. And because of that, it creates easy opportunities for opponents of development, activist organizations, to manufacture fear.”

Right. This was in 2012, within months of floods across Asia that displaced tens of millions and during the hottest summer ever recorded in the U.S., when much of our grain crop failed. Oh yeah and just before Hurricane Sandy.

He’s continued the same kind of belligerent rhetoric throughout his tenure. At last year’s ExxonMobil shareholder meeting, for instance, he said that if the world had to deal with “inclement weather,” which “may or may not be induced by climate change,” we should employ unspecified “new technologies.” Mankind, he explained, “has this enormous capacity to deal with adversity.”

In other words, we’re no longer talking about outright denial, just a denial that much really needs to be done. And even when the company has proposed doing something, its proposals have been strikingly ethereal. Exxon’s PR team, for instance, has discussed supporting a price on carbon, which is only what economists left, right and center have been recommending since the 1980s. But the minimal price they recommend—somewhere in the range of $40 to $60 a ton—wouldn’t do much to slow down their business. After all, they insist that all their reserves are still recoverable in the context of such a price increase, which would serve mainly to make life harder for the already terminal coal industry.

But say you think it’s a great idea to put a price on carbon—which, in fact, it is, since every signal helps sway investment decisions. In that case, Exxon’s done its best to make sure that what they pretend to support in theory will never happen in practice.  

Consider, for instance, their political contributions. The website Dirty Energy Money, organized by Oil Change International, makes it easy to track who gave what to whom. If you look at all of Exxon’s political contributions from 1999 to the present, a huge majority of their political harem of politicians have signed the famous Taxpayer Protection Pledge from Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform that binds them to vote against any new taxes. Norquist himself wrote Congress in late January that “a carbon tax is a VAT or Value Added Tax on training wheels. Any carbon tax would inevitably be spread out over wider and wider parts of the economy until we had a European Value Added Tax.” As he told a reporter last year, “I don’t see the path to getting a lot of Republican votes” for a carbon tax and since he’s been called “the most powerful man in American politics,” that seems like a good bet.

The only Democratic senator in Exxon’s top 60 list was former Louisiana solon Mary Landrieu, who made a great virtue in her last race of the fact that she was “the key vote” in blocking carbon pricing in Congress. Bill Cassidy, the man who defeated her, is also an Exxon favorite and lost no time in co-sponsoring a bill opposing any carbon taxes. In other words, you could really call Exxon’s supposed concessions on climate change a Shell game. Except it’s Exxon.

 
The Never-Ending Big Dig

Even that’s not the deepest problem.

The deepest problem is Exxon’s business plan.
The company spends huge amounts of money searching for new hydrocarbons. Given the recent plunge in oil prices, its capital spending and exploration budget was indeed cut by 12 percent in 2015 to $34 billion and another 25 percent in 2016 to $23.2 billion. In 2015, that meant Exxon was spending $63 million a day “as it continues to bring new projects on line.” They are still spending a cool $1.57 billion a year looking for new sources of hydrocarbons—$4 million a day, every day.

As Exxon looks ahead, despite the current bargain basement price of oil, it still boasts of expansion plans in the Gulf of Mexico, eastern Canada, Indonesia, Australia, the Russian far east, Angola and Nigeria. “The strength of our global organization allows us to explore across all geological and geographical environments, using industry-leading technology and capabilities.” And its willingness to get in bed with just about any regime out there makes it even easier. Somewhere in his trophy case, for instance, Rex Tillerson has an Order of Friendship medal from one Vladimir Putin. All it took was a joint energy venture estimated to be worth $500 billion.

But, you say, that’s what oil companies do, go find new oil, right? Unfortunately, that’s precisely what we can’t have them doing any more.

About a decade ago, scientists first began figuring out a “carbon budget” for the planet—an estimate for how much more carbon we could burn before we completely overheated the Earth. There are potentially many thousands of gigatons of carbon that could be extracted from the planet if we keep exploring. The fossil fuel industry has already identified at least 5,000 gigatons of carbon that it has told regulators, shareholders and banks it plans to extract. However, we can only burn about another 900 gigatons of carbon before we disastrously overheat the planet. On our current trajectory, we’d burn through that “budget” in about a couple of decades. The carbon we’ve burned has already raised the planet’s temperature a degree Celsius and on our present course we’ll burn enough to take us past two degrees in less than 20 years.

At this point, in fact, no climate scientist thinks that even a two-degree rise in temperature is a safe target, since one degree is already melting the ice caps. (Indeed, new data released this month shows that, if we hit the two-degree mark, we’ll be living with drastically raised sea levels for, oh, twice as long as human civilization has existed to date.) That’s why in November world leaders in Paris agreed to try to limit the planet’s temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius or just under three degrees Fahrenheit. If you wanted to meet that target, however, you would need to be done burning fossil fuels by perhaps 2020, which is in technical terms just about now.

Quote
That’s why it’s wildly irresponsible for a company to be leading the world in oil exploration when, as scientists have carefully explained, we already have access to four or five times as much carbon in the Earth as we can safely burn.

We have it, as it were, on the shelf. So why would we go looking for more? Scientists have even done us the useful service of identifying precisely the kinds of fossil fuels we should never dig up and—what do you know—an awful lot of them are on Exxon’s future wish list, including the tar sands of Canada, a particularly carbon-filthy, environmentally destructive fuel to produce and burn.

Even Exxon’s one attempt to profit from stanching global warming has started to come apart. Several years ago, the company began a calculated pivot in the direction of natural gas, which produces less carbon than oil when burned. In 2009, Exxon acquired XTO Energy, a company that had mastered the art of extracting gas from shale via hydraulic fracturing. By now, Exxon has become America’s leading fracker and a pioneer in natural gas markets around the world. The trouble with fracked natural gas—other than what Tillerson once called “farmer Joe’s lit his faucet on fire”—is this: in recent years, it’s become clear that the process of fracking for gas releases large amounts of methane into the atmosphere and methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. As Cornell University scientist Robert Howarth has recently established, burning natural gas to produce electricity probably warms the planet faster than burning coal or crude oil.

Exxon’s insistence on finding and producing ever more fossil fuels certainly benefited its shareholders for a time, even if it cost the Earth dearly. Five of the 10 largest annual profits ever reported by any company belonged to Exxon in these years. Even the financial argument is now, however, weakening. Over the last five years, Exxon has lagged behind many of its competitors as well as the broader market and a big reason, according to the Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI), is its heavy investment in particularly expensive, hard-to-recover oil and gas.

In 2007, as CTI reported, Canadian tar sands and similar “heavy oil” deposits accounted for 7.5 percent of Exxon’s proven reserves. By 2013, that number had risen to 17 percent. A smart business strategy for the company, according to CTI, would involve shrinking its exploration budget, concentrating on the oil fields it has access to that can still be pumped profitably at low prices and using the cash flow to buy back shares or otherwise reward investors.

That would, however, mean exchanging Exxon’s Texan-style big-is-good approach for something far more modest. And since we’re speaking about what was the biggest company on the planet for a significant part of the twentieth century, Exxon seems to be set on continuing down that bigger-is-better path. They’re betting that the price of oil will rise in the reasonably near future   , that alternative energy won’t develop fast enough and that the world won’t aggressively tackle climate change. And the company will keep trying to cover those bets by aggressively backing politicians capable of ensuring that nothing happens.   


Can Exxon Be Pressured?  ???

Next to that fierce stance on the planet’s future, the mild requests of activists for the last 25 years seem … well, next to pointless. At the 2015 ExxonMobil shareholder meeting, for instance, religious shareholder activists asked for the umpteenth time that the company at least make public its plans for managing climate risks. Even BP, Shell and Statoil had agreed to that much. Instead, Exxon’s management campaigned against the resolution and it got only 9.6 percent of shareholder votes, a tally so low it can’t even be brought up again for another three years. By which time we’ll have burned through … oh, never mind.

What we need from Exxon is what they’ll never give: a pledge to keep most of their reserves underground, an end to new exploration and a promise to stay away from the political system. Don’t hold your breath.

But if Exxon seems hopelessly set in its ways, revulsion is growing. The investigations by the New York and California attorneys general mean that the company will have to turn over lots of documents. If journalists could find out as much as they did about Exxon’s deceit in public archives, think what someone with subpoena power might accomplish. Many other jurisdictions could jump in, too.

At the Paris climate talks in December, a panel of law professors led a well-attended session on the different legal theories that courts around the world might apply to the company’s deceptive behavior. When that begins to happen, count on one thing: the spotlight won’t shine exclusively on Exxon. As with the tobacco companies in the decades when they were covering up the dangers of cigarettes, there’s a good chance that the Big Energy companies were in this together through their trade associations and other front groups. In fact, just before Christmas, Inside Climate News published some revealing new documents about the role that Texaco, Shell and other majors played in an American Petroleum Institute study of climate change back in the early 1980s. A trial would be a transformative event—a reckoning for the crime of the millennium.

But while we’re waiting for the various investigations to play out, there’s lots of organizing going at the state and local level when it comes to Exxon, climate change and fossil fuels—everything from politely asking more states to join the legal process to politely shutting down gas stations for a few hours to pointing out to New York and California that they might not want to hold millions of dollars of stock in a company they’re investigating. It may even be starting to work.

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, for instance, singled Exxon out in his state of the state address last month. He called on the legislature to divest the state of its holdings in the company because of its deceptions.

Quote
“This is a page right out of Big Tobacco,” he said, “which for decades denied the health risks of their product as they were killing people. Owning ExxonMobil stock is not a business Vermont should be in.”

The question is: Why on God’s-not-so-green-Earth-anymore would anyone want to be Exxon’s partner?  ???

http://ecowatch.com/2016/...n-climate-change-crime/3/


The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #44 on: February 23, 2016, 10:18:01 pm »

Three U.S. House Reps call for DOJ to investigate Shell climate probe 

Staff Writers  February 23, 2016   
 
Three U.S. House Democrats are calling for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate whether Shell Oil misled the public about climate change.

According to the L.A. Times, U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu of California, Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont and Rep. Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania sent a letter earlier this week asking the DOJ to investigate whether Shell “intentionally” hid information about climate change and engaged in a “misinformation” campaign.

Quote
The letter also suggests that Shell, ExxonMobil and potentially other energy firms were involved in a conspiracy to obscure the impact of climate change.

The letter cites an L.A. Times investigation published in December that claims Shell redesigned a $3 billion North Sea platform to allow the facility to operate amid rising sea levels.

A Shell spokesman told the paper that Shell has included information about climate change and the challenges it poses in its publications, including its annual reports and Sustainability Report, for over 10 years.

“Recognizing the climate challenge and the role energy has in enabling a decent quality of life, we continue to pursue and advance constructive dialogue on this topic as the challenge is one for all of society,” the spokesman told the L.A. Times.

In October, Lieu sent a letter to the DOJ asking it to determine if Exxon misled the public about climate change and violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO.

Citing investigations conducted by the L.A. Times, Inside Climate News and Columbia University’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Project, Lieu also asked the DOJ to determine if Exxon violated shareholder protection, public health, truth in advertising, consumer protection and other laws.

Exxon has denied any wrongdoing and said it has provided  “continuous and publicly available climate research” that refutes claims that the firm deliberately suppressed data.” 

“These activists took those statements out of context and ignored other readily available statements demonstrating that our researchers recognized the developing nature of climate science at the time which, in fact, mirrored global understanding,” Exxon vice president of public and government affairs Ken Cohen said in response to Lieu’s letter.


Exxon confirmed in November that it received a subpoena from the attorney general of New York relating to climate change documents.

Exxon added that it has included information about the business risk posed by climate change for many years in its 10-K, Corporate Citizenship Report and in other reports to shareholders.  ;)

The New York Times reported that month that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been investigating the company for about a year and may be looking at information dating back to the 1970s.

Schneiderman is reportedly investigating whether Exxon misled investors by failing to disclose the potential impact climate change could have on its business.

The New York Attorney General’s Office has not commented on the matter.

http://petroglobalnews.co...-for-shell-climate-probe/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
50 Replies
2637 Views
Last post October 17, 2017, 03:13:27 pm
by AGelbert
180 Replies
6210 Views
Last post December 08, 2017, 01:41:51 pm
by AGelbert
209 Replies
3643 Views
Last post December 12, 2017, 02:40:24 pm
by AGelbert
0 Replies
427 Views
Last post October 25, 2013, 04:19:25 pm
by AGelbert
0 Replies
214 Views
Last post November 21, 2013, 12:05:39 am
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:49:23 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:29:07 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 10:01:49 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 05:05:03 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 04:34:29 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 02:51:20 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 01:35:42 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 10:49:12 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 09:32:10 pm

Fibonacci Sequence: The Spiral of Life by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 01:07:22 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial